Powerplay Proposal (strong anti 5C, mode specific, plus other tweaks)

This is a Powerplay overhaul proposal that uses all of Sandros ideas plus a few more based on the 3.x BGS rework to enhance the feature, and employ strong anti 5C measures. Sandro Sammarcos proposal changes are included as they were originally.

Problem

Powerplay does not function well across the three modes, with antagonism between solo / PG and Open players being fed by a lack of boundaries and hard rules as to who is playing 'right'. Due to design flaws its also very easy to hurt powers from within 5C, or fifth column).

The following offers Powerplay to both groups in a way that both help the same power via separate, focused tasks.

Idea

Powerplay is split into two halves: one half is Solo /PG, the other Open only. The Solo/ PG part is mission based and contributes to accumulating fort materials for the Open only half to deliver. So, rather than make all modes try to do the same things you provide each mode with specific jobs that amplify that modes potential.

-----------------
General (shared across all modes)
1) Both sets of players share ranks and perks as they are now.
2) Merits are split as a concept. Players have the value Trust (see later), cargo in the game or combat merits (from killing PP NPCs).
3) Solo and PG players can vote in all stages (i.e. consolidate / vote on weeks preps) as normal, thus they have an equal say in a powers choices.
Sandros suggestions here would also be available for all players too:
Preparation Cycle Split
• The first half of the cycle is available for preparation
• The second half of the cycle locks the current preparation values and enables voting
Vote to veto preparation
• Each player can vote to veto or support each preparation
• If a preparation ends the cycle with more veto votes than support votes it is removed from preparation
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
Reasoning: these two changes in tandem are meant to make it easier to prevent bad systems from being prepared with minimal effort. Rather than use consolidation, which must be chosen blind in terms of both the final preparation for systems and the final resting place for the consolidation marker, here Commanders are voting on a fixed list and can choose precisely which systems they want to attempt to veto.
Vote to withdraw from system
• Each cycle players can vote on the 5 least profitable systems, to withdraw or support
• At the end of a cycle if a system has more withdraw votes than support votes it is removed from the power’s control
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
Reasoning: currently there is no way to lose a bad control system other than hoping or colluding with opposing powers that it will end up being forced into turmoil. We think this vote is a legible and relatively safe way of allowing powers to shed chaff, as only systems that at a base level would be unprofitable would be eligible for withdrawal.
4) The allocation increment between ranks is removed. It starts at a flat 10 and multiplied by your Trust value (see below). Important: allocations are not time dependent but instead dependent on delivery- i.e. you get a fixed amount to move at the time of collection and no more until its delivered.
5) Perks and modules are unlocked based on your trust value (see below).

Trust

Powerplay players have a new variable to manage- 'Trust'. It acts similar to rep with factions and replaces personal merits. The more positive outcomes you have doing tasks across all modes, the higher this value gets. It acts as a multiplier for rewards, as well as your allocation (see later sections for details).
The trust value ranges from 10 (maximum) to -9 (no trust) depending on activity. At full trust (10) all personal perks are unlocked in a similar way to rank 5 currently. But, if your trust gets too low through failing certain tasks repeatedly, you are automatically unpledged and treated as a defector- i.e. that power sends assassins after you.

Automatic unpledging occurs after 1 BGS 'tick' at -9. This is an anti 5C measure, so that positive actions reward, while being 5C gets you kicked out and punished (see later for examples of this in action).

New pledges have to undergo a mission to prove their loyalty, and once complete get a message from your glorious leader allowing them to be a pledge. You start with a low trust score, and must work to improve it. Missions might be to stock a control systems depot (see below) or kill x amount of rival PP players / NPCs.
Note, trust will decay slowly over time. However this is gradual (and not as harsh as it is now- it would be 5% each week, not 50%.) Please note also that regaining trust points is free and as easy as doing missions or delivering cargo (which is also free).

If your Trust value is high (say, 10) each Open cargo run could pay for one potential rebuy. So for each cargo unit which has a flat value (say 1 million) , with a trust of 10 on delivery you get 10 million in cash. Since credits can't buy cargo, you can't use the cash to 5C the power. Those with a negative trust value get no bonus, so only get a million on delivery.

If your trust value is negative (between -1 and -9), you are blocked from collecting preparation materials or hauling fortification materials. This is to prevent 5C from dumping cargo, completing a mission to raise trust, and deliver again (so doing just enough to stay in the Power). In this situation the player must raise trust doing missions or undermine, thus preventing any mass dumping of cargo / prep materials to unlock the ability to deliver in the Open portion of Powerplay. So, 5C are forced to act in your powers interests.

IMPORTANT:

All actions that either gain or lose trust have bold labeling that clearly indicate what that action costs in Trust (in the UI). This can act as a guide for new pledges who currently are left overwhelmed (and have no guidance since Powerplay is not in the pilots handbook).

Examples:

Hovering over the votes would have a popup that says +1 trust for 'good' votes for high CC systems
Outside in space, killing a fellow pledge would have a message, like the "treachery!" message, or if you eject your cargo for potential collusion piracy.

By knowing whats a good move v a bad one, players can in isolation see what to do like a gentle guide. Currently there is no indication as to what is wrong or right.

Pledging / Unpledging

You can unpledge at any time. You must wait 7 BGS ticks before you can repledge again to any power, and you start with a neutral trust value of 1. This gives new pledges plenty of scope to advance (and make mistakes) but not high enough to be abused by 5C agents.

You can also defect instantly- however your trust value with your new power is set very low at -8 since you are traitorous untrustworthy scum, and your old power will hunt you for 7 days with G5 assassins, as well as having your marker show up in Open as a traitor for the same amount of time. In short, defecting is dangerous. If you are auto unpledged for being at -9 trust 1 BGS tick, you are hunted for 14 BGS ticks and subject to the same caveats as defectors (visible in map etc).

Note, it would therefore be in a players own interests if they are not active in Powerplay to depledge rather than let it lapse :D Power leaders do not forgive and take time to forget transgressions.

In practice with 5C

Voting for negative CC systems, delivering preparation merits to 5C systems, shooting your own Powers ships, fortifying systems past 100% all affect your trust score to varying degrees. However it is possible that if a 5C agent keeps on making 5C moves they will be unpledged within one tick and expelled for 2 whole cycles, making direct 5C very hard to do for any length of time. This also stops multiple 'alt' accounts doing the same.

Examples:

Voting for negative CC systems: -1 trust (scaling to -5 if vote strength is 5 after 16 weeks)
Delivering preparation merits to 5C systems: -1 per 10 cargo
Shooting your own Powers ships: -1 trust per ship
Fortifying systems past 100%: -1 per 200 cargo past 100% total (unless system is 'mega' undermined as per Sandros proposed changes that uncap undermining).

So, a 5C agent would have 19 points of damage to 'spend':
-1 vote for a poor system
-18 for delivering 180 preparation merits to a poor CC system.

So from doing very little 5C work, the 5C agent would have to do positive things to prevent unpledging after one tick - in short they must improve the power to remain in it, disrupting exploitative loops. With Sandros weighted merits that would be a double effect ('bad' systems would be hugely expensive in merits and that every 110 cargo dropped you down to levels of trust where you are blocked from collecting more). This also allows Powerplay piracy again, because collusion piracy is heavily penalized.

Note: good actions (fortifying systems below 100%, preparing high (or non zero) CC systems, are worth the following:

Voting for positive CC systems: + 0.5 trust (scaling to 2.5 if vote strength = 5)
Delivering preparation merits to positive CC systems: +1 per 10 cargo
Fortifying systems that are below 100%: +0.5 per 200 cargo, this increases to +1 per 100 cargo if the system is 'mega' undermined since this is a dangerous area!

Good actions are worth 'less', so that is easier to drop trust than it is to gain it (ensuring that players are always guided to do good deeds via design- i.e. players know up front what is a 'good' action and what is detrimental to the power). But, since genuine players would be doing more good tasks the difference is not a problem.

Also note its impossible to 5C from the solo / PG part of Powerplay in this proposal.

Voting

Along with Sandros weighting a pledge can only vote if their trust value is 9 or 10. This makes 5C have to improve the power to be able to vote, which is hard if through exploitative play they get a low trust score as outlined. A regular player who is delivering, running missions that improve the power will always have a high trust value.
Your vote also counts towards trust. The lower the CC of the system you are voting for, the more your trust is knocked. So vote for a wildly negative one, and prepare to take the hit.

This is in addition to the weighting Sandro suggested.

Between Sandros voting changes:

Preparation Cycle Split
• The first half of the cycle is available for preparation
• The second half of the cycle locks the current preparation values and enables voting
Vote to veto preparation
• Each player can vote to veto or support each preparation
• If a preparation ends the cycle with more veto votes than support votes it is removed from preparation
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
Reasoning: these two changes in tandem are meant to make it easier to prevent bad systems from being prepared with minimal effort. Rather than use consolidation, which must be chosen blind in terms of both the final preparation for systems and the final resting place for the consolidation marker, here Commanders are voting on a fixed list and can choose precisely which systems they want to attempt to veto.
...plus my suggestion 5C cannot flourish- the Trust value acts as a logical guide that rewards a player for voting for high value systems, and punishes 5C choices.
Solo/ PG tasks
This fleshes out Sandros 'missions / favours' proposal quoted below:
Missions give Powerplay successes

• Missions for factions in a system that share a power’s superpower award a number of Powerplay successes when completed
• The mission type determines how many successes are given
• Successes can be applied to expansion, opposition, fortification and undermining

Reasoning: one of the complaints of Powerplay is the limited actions available to support your power. We think that liking, in a very simple manner, missions for aligned factions and Powerplay successes allows Commanders increased variety in an efficient manner. The idea is not to replace the standard Powerplay activities, but to compliment them.

My expansion of this section:

A power who owns a 'bubble' (i.e. a control system and its surrounding exploited systems) will generate missions for that bubble. Each mission has three rewards (as now) but with an important difference- as well as money / mats you also have a Powerplay cargo reward based on difficulty (this replaces the INF reward). When complete, this adds that amount to a central depot in that bubbles control system automatically. Each + equals 10, so a reward of +++++ = 50 cargo added to the depots total.

PP themed missions would consist of the following, and would be biased in generation depending on power ethos (i.e. a power that is all hauling would have mainly hauling tasks, while a power that has violent ethos traits would have more combat missions). So covert = spy / steal missions, combat = combat, social = positive delivery missions, economic = hauling etc.

Some ideas:

Spy recovery: your power tasks you in recovering a captured VIP on a surface base or defended location. Use your SRV and break them out!
Kidnap: wipe out a visiting dignitary's escorts and steal his escape pod.
Protect: protect a Powers megaship from waves of scum sent by your enemies!
Courier: you must deliver important data that enemies want to prevent being seen.
Kill: a rival Powers ace pilot has been spotted- kill them for a propaganda coup.
Data thief: steal data from a rivals surface data point/ megaship / instillation without getting caught
Passenger (A): a VIP power dignitary wishes to tour your powers control systems. Make sure they come out alive
Passenger (B): Saboteur- smuggle these illegal passengers into rival control systems to lower their CG. If you are scanned you will be fired on.
Haul: some powers who move slaves / dissidents might have missions where you move these unfortunates, with mission wrinkles being other powers trying to convince you what you are doing is 'wrong'. You can lose Trust for siding with the enemy if you choose a certain outcome!
Wing missions could be harder versions of the above, or provide more of a challenge to solo players.
These missions could also have more of your Powers 'flavour' to them- for example Archon Delaine might have more organised crime themed missions, Zemina Torval more mining based, and so on- aspects that are currently glossed over and forgotten. They could also be good RP windows into your power, showing what its like rounding up Utopian crimethink dissidents, or corporate officespeak with Li Yong Rui.

Solo PG also has the task of BGS upkeep (as it is now).

As these are completed the amount of power supplies increases, and the available supplies are visible on the Power map.

Open tasks

Sandro:
Open only
• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
Reasoning: We’ve saved the biggest change for last, as making Powerplay Open only goes way beyond the remit of a tweak. We’ve seen this topic discussed many times and we think it’s time we addressed it directly to get as much quality feedback as possible.
Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.
Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes
• A system’s base profitability modifies preparation votes, withdraw votes and preparation successes
• Votes and successes for profitable systems are increased by a factor of 10
Reasoning: we think this modifier acts as another barrier against internal sabotage, forcing the saboteurs to work many more times harder to get the same effect as a Commander who has the power’s interests at heart.

My elaboration:

In this proposal, all tasks that are done today are done in Open only here. So fortifying, prepping, UM, expansions are done on a level playing field (or as near to one as you can get technology wise).

Expansions

Expansions by combat now use the 'new' CZ mechanics. Although this does mean more hopping between zones it does stop AFK (away from keyboard) players farming merits in tough turret based ships that use heal beams (as demonstrated in the Healies 4 Feelies videos). Each intensity (low,med high) also reward more merits based on difficulty chosen. Being killed does not reduce trust, but killing someone who holds merits or Powerplay cargo massively increases trust.

Fortifying

Fortifying is all inbound (as per Sandro) and can only take place if enough supplies are in the control systems depot. Allocations are based on your trust value. You must deliver successfully to keep your high allocation.

If you fail at delivery (i.e. the cargo is destroyed or ejected and left to expire) your trust value goes down. This in turn affects your allocation multiplier which can go from 10 to -9 depending on activity, but is weighted to go down faster (almost x2 as fast) while it takes twice as long to raise the trust value in positive actions. This in turn protects against the old collusion piracy problem, and could also allow power commodity piracy back as another lucrative gameplay mechanic.
All of Sandros suggestions in the link at the top of the thread would be used (weighting, prep votes etc) and would hopefully make 5C more manageable. Along with CZ changes it would limit exploitation. Being realistic it will not wipe out all problems but thats down to P2P in the end. All powers are inbound fortifiers, 'uncapped' undermining (which dovetails well into solo players increasing allocations to help), BGS footprints now in capitals / control systems only (so only these systems need to be aligned to lower fortification) and so on.
Taken together, solo / PG players act as the 'generators' of Powerplay materials, while Open players are the 'movers' who deliver them. Everyone has a well defined role, and no mode is excluded.

Blocking

Pledges cannot block other pledges, only censor messages. Its illogical to block a player for killing you in a feature thats about conflict. Also, if you are winged with a Powerplay pledge, you 'inherit' the Powerplay block rules- this prevents an exploit where non pledges can be used to get around the blocking rules.

Power Module

Players have two ways to get a module: tech brokers (no pledge required), or have a trust value above 8 for a reduced cost. Note: the module is free while you are at a high trust value and pledged, but expensive in time and materials via brokers.

This incentivizes being in a Power properly because you can gain the module via good actions only, is fast (i.e. no waiting for weeks) and that modules are much less expensive if they are of a high Trust value (only done via playing correctly).

This would ultimately have to go hand in hand with balancing the modules though, because some (like Prismatics) are massively expensive and come in all sizes, while other powers have modules in one size and / or are useless (the Retributor laser for example).

For those who want the module outside of Powerplay, you have to do the equivalent in work to unlock them- i.e by depositing materials like any human technology broker. Both apporaches are broadly equal, but favour being in a power still.

Additional

Sandros idea of control systems alone determining a bubbles favourable / neutral / unfavourable status also features in this proposal.

Powerplay tab

You can only see information that relates to your power, and rival powers information on fortifcation levels only updates if you are in that system. This is to encourage a new role, that of spies and information reconassaince.
 
Last edited:
Couple of questions...

1) How is a 5C system determined? I'm looking for how you think the 'code' would label a system as inappropriate for preparation and thus trigger the 5C penalty described.

2) I agree the system of Powerplay, inherently designed as consensual PvP, makes sense in Open Only when viewed from the lens of combat. However, multiple PP factions and their playstyles revolve around 'market' PvP or other forms that don't involve direct combat. With the introduction of many 5C repulsion methods, is Open-Only necessary or simply desired? Why?

3) The base profitability modifier makes sense, but also seems to make the game 'easier' in terms of mitigating the point of voting. The voting system is a sort of "PvP within PvP" - a means by which minor factions, supporting 'the' PP Faction, can argue democratically over strategic choices. While this allows 5C in its current state, the proposed changes not only affect 5C but also inter-faction struggles that aren't 5C. Is this a serious loss to the system? Should voting as a whole simply be removed and the PP system follow an algorithm on determining how best to expand? Why?


Powerplay is a wonderfully convoluted feature with lots of potential, but I think the biggest question yet answered is: What is it for?
  • Is it consensual PvP a la factional warfare like in EVE?
  • Is it so minor factions (ideally PMFs) can war against one another consensually?
  • Is it to provide more module diversity for a loyalty (grind) system?

If it's intended as a consensual PvP (see: you agree to be blown up), then Open Only is sensible and stripping solo of PP interaction, and PG, as reasonable because these provide unfair methods for influencing the system. However, we also must agree that locking modules and any future content behind this now PvP-Mandated system as a serious concern, if only because the Elite community is so very clearly not ok with locking content behind PvP.

It's a bit silly to me - 'content' such as gear is regularly locked behind PvP thresholds in many online games, but apparently that's not normal here. Anyhow: Powerplay as a whole is a victim of multi-mode design if only because, somewhere along the line, it was agreed that all things must be in all modes. Rarely does this work, and it never works for anything remotely competitive in nature. Hence why you build standalone features for PvP usually.

cough CQC cough

Neat writeup, hope you get more feedback - thanks in advance for answering the questions!
 
I'm a loooong way from being a PP expert, but it's always struck me as odd that holding certain systems is detrimental to a Power. If the penalties for such systems were reduced/removed wouldn't that effectively remove 5C from the equation?
 
I'm a loooong way from being a PP expert, but it's always struck me as odd that holding certain systems is detrimental to a Power. If the penalties for such systems were reduced/removed wouldn't that effectively remove 5C from the equation?
Blasphemy.

In all seriousness, the way CC is set up is so that 'something is on the table' in terms of wins and losses. If owning systems couldn't be potentially detrimental, the strategic component would be reduced. That said...it's not a bad suggestion if PP were simply a slug-fest for territory and CC were removed entirely. It would render the voting system obsolete - which itself is the main reason 5C exists.

It sounds stupidly simple - and therefore maybe not as fun - but I have also wondered if PP should just be a straight slugfest for territory.
 
1) How is a 5C system determined? I'm looking for how you think the 'code' would label a system as inappropriate for preparation and thus trigger the 5C penalty described.
A '5C' system is a system that has a very negative CC value. Note this is the same as a weaponized expansion, just applied differently.

2) I agree the system of Powerplay, inherently designed as consensual PvP, makes sense in Open Only when viewed from the lens of combat. However, multiple PP factions and their playstyles revolve around 'market' PvP or other forms that don't involve direct combat. With the introduction of many 5C repulsion methods, is Open-Only necessary or simply desired? Why?
All powers UM via combat, and all powers haul to prepare and fortify. The only difference is some powers haul to expand, while others fight.

3) The base profitability modifier makes sense, but also seems to make the game 'easier' in terms of mitigating the point of voting. The voting system is a sort of "PvP within PvP" - a means by which minor factions, supporting 'the' PP Faction, can argue democratically over strategic choices. While this allows 5C in its current state, the proposed changes not only affect 5C but also inter-faction struggles that aren't 5C. Is this a serious loss to the system? Should voting as a whole simply be removed and the PP system follow an algorithm on determining how best to expand? Why?
If I had my way, I'd get rid of all voting simply as its open to problems. What having a trust value + weighting does (plus being able to vote out poor systems) means that 5C have to work exponentially harder.

Powerplay is a wonderfully convoluted feature with lots of potential, but I think the biggest question yet answered is: What is it for?
  • Is it consensual PvP a la factional warfare like in EVE?
  • Is it so minor factions (ideally PMFs) can war against one another consensually?
  • Is it to provide more module diversity for a loyalty (grind) system?
Its really the first, with the second being a consequence of the first.

If it's intended as a consensual PvP (see: you agree to be blown up), then Open Only is sensible and stripping solo of PP interaction, and PG, as reasonable because these provide unfair methods for influencing the system. However, we also must agree that locking modules and any future content behind this now PvP-Mandated system as a serious concern, if only because the Elite community is so very clearly not ok with locking content behind PvP.
Modules are not locked in this idea. You can either pledge to get them (costing time and some money) or via brokers (via mats, an more money).

It's a bit silly to me - 'content' such as gear is regularly locked behind PvP thresholds in many online games, but apparently that's not normal here. Anyhow: Powerplay as a whole is a victim of multi-mode design if only because, somewhere along the line, it was agreed that all things must be in all modes. Rarely does this work, and it never works for anything remotely competitive in nature. Hence why you build standalone features for PvP usually.

cough CQC cough


Personally the biggest mistake FD made was to smear a thin concept across modes and expect it to work- by grouping mode specific tasks you then sidestep all that, and can use the modes strengths instead.

Neat writeup, hope you get more feedback - thanks in advance for answering the questions!
:D
 
I'm a loooong way from being a PP expert, but it's always struck me as odd that holding certain systems is detrimental to a Power. If the penalties for such systems were reduced/removed wouldn't that effectively remove 5C from the equation?
Sort of, since both features form strategy in different ways. The flaw in Powerplay is that a system holds value and determines its attractiveness; in the BGS no system has intrinsic value so you can expand without consequence but its 'blind' expansion based on pure amounts.
 
Blasphemy.

In all seriousness, the way CC is set up is so that 'something is on the table' in terms of wins and losses. If owning systems couldn't be potentially detrimental, the strategic component would be reduced. That said...it's not a bad suggestion if PP were simply a slug-fest for territory and CC were removed entirely. It would render the voting system obsolete - which itself is the main reason 5C exists.

It sounds stupidly simple - and therefore maybe not as fun - but I have also wondered if PP should just be a straight slugfest for territory.
I explored this idea here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-proposal-for-redesign-using-bgs-style-mechanics-that-work-with-the-new-bgs.508604/
 
A very involved argument in favor of Open Only that still fails to address the core issues:
  • Time Zones - A person not logged in cannot be countered.
  • Locality - You can only be in one place at a time. If "they" are in another system, you won't encounter them. The fact that you cannot see them on the Galaxy map means that you don't even know where they are.
  • Instancing - If you don't instance, it doesn't matter whether they are in Open.
  • Open for Consoles - Console gamers have to pay for Open, meaning that you are forcing them into a Pay to Play requirement.
  • Cross Platform Interaction - You cannot fight someone that isn't in your environment.
Bluntly, Open Only will not solve the Power Play "problem".

As to your modifications to the mechanics, those looking intriguing.
 
A very involved argument in favor of Open Only that still fails to address the core issues:
  • Time Zones - A person not logged in cannot be countered.
  • Locality - You can only be in one place at a time. If "they" are in another system, you won't encounter them. The fact that you cannot see them on the Galaxy map means that you don't even know where they are.
  • Instancing - If you don't instance, it doesn't matter whether they are in Open.
  • Open for Consoles - Console gamers have to pay for Open, meaning that you are forcing them into a Pay to Play requirement.
  • Cross Platform Interaction - You cannot fight someone that isn't in your environment.
Bluntly, Open Only will not solve the Power Play "problem".

As to your modifications to the mechanics, those looking intriguing.
Time Zones- Powers work to other powers knowing when they work, and to a schedule themselves. This has not changed in years- I know because I used to be leadership in one Power and involved in advising others.

Locality- Powerplay has defined areas- preparation areas, expansions as well as control systems and capitals. If you want to mess up another power or don't like what they are doing, you know where they will most likely be. You even get UM reports too!

Instancing- true, but Open Powerplay is opportunistic PvP, not 1:1 CQC.

Open for Consoles- times are changing, for example with MS and its more openness (like with Halo). While some would lose out, the near majority of people on the discords who are XB or PS4 are subscribers. The other aspect is the numbers of console players in Powerplay is a fraction of PC- and considering those numbers are estimated to be about 1000 or so, thats not a lot to lose if you stand to gain a lot more (as was the reaction).

Cross Platform- again, times are changing, but even then players do exist on each platform and condenses 9 galaxies into 3.

Open most certainly will fix Powerplay- mainly as it replaces ineffectual NPCs with players, especially since the mooted changes greatly condense the areas Powerplay is fought in. Fortication is one way (to a single point), preparations and expansions another choke point, as well as uncapped UM creating pressure points where players have to be to defend their Power in an almost organically generated CG within Powerplay.

All this builds to make larger territories harder to defend, reducing stasis, and freeing space to be fought over.
 
So the PP modules/weapons can be bought without PP but PP must be done in Open. Seems a fair trade off. Dunno why anybody would choose to do PP in PG/Solo when they can get the modules elsewhere. Only PP players will play PP if that makes sense.

The rest 5C etc - over my head. But can you number these threads, this is the 2nd suggestion right? If not Ive missed one
 
So the PP modules/weapons can be bought without PP but PP must be done in Open. Seems a fair trade off. Dunno why anybody would choose to do PP in PG/Solo when they can get the modules elsewhere. Only PP players will play PP if that makes sense.

The rest 5C etc - over my head. But can you number these threads, this is the 2nd suggestion right? If not Ive missed one
Here are a load:


The one I posted here is an evolution of one on that list with stronger 5C measures and various tweaks.
 
Time Zones - A person not logged in cannot be countered.
Time Zones- Powers work to other powers knowing when they work, and to a schedule themselves. This has not changed in years- I know because I used to be leadership in one Power and involved in advising others.
My argument stands because you have not actually rebutted the fact that when you aren't logged in, you cannot work against someone.
Locality - You can only be in one place at a time. If "they" are in another system, you won't encounter them. The fact that you cannot see them on the Galaxy map means that you don't even know where they are.
Locality- Powerplay has defined areas- preparation areas, expansions as well as control systems and capitals. If you want to mess up another power or don't like what they are doing, you know where they will most likely be. You even get UM reports too!
This argument also stands because you very carefully SUPPOSE, as opposed to knowing.
Instancing - If you don't instance, it doesn't matter whether they are in Open.
Instancing- true, but Open Powerplay is opportunistic PvP, not 1:1 CQC.
Kinda disproving your own argument for an Open environment, hmm?
Open for Consoles - Console gamers have to pay for Open, meaning that you are forcing them into a Pay to Play requirement.
Open for Consoles- times are changing, for example with MS and its more openness (like with Halo). While some would lose out, the near majority of people on the discords who are XB or PS4 are subscribers. The other aspect is the numbers of console players in Powerplay is a fraction of PC- and considering those numbers are estimated to be about 1000 or so, thats not a lot to lose if you stand to gain a lot more (as was the reaction).
So, your desire for an Open Only should trump the legal consideration of discriminating against anyone that doesn't pay for this element of gameplay? The majority argument is a fallacy because each player is supposed to have the same legal rights within the gaming environment.
Cross Platform Interaction - You cannot fight someone that isn't in your environment.
Cross Platform- again, times are changing, but even then players do exist on each platform and condenses 9 galaxies into 3.
Circular reasoning using the argument to prove the argument (9 to 3), and a hope that your solution will be implemented...

Open most certainly will fix Powerplay- mainly as it replaces ineffectual NPCs with players, especially since the mooted changes greatly condense the areas Powerplay is fought in. Fortication is one way (to a single point), preparations and expansions another choke point, as well as uncapped UM creating pressure points where players have to be to defend their Power in an almost organically generated CG within Powerplay.
Except that even your own statements don't support this position because you cannot guarantee instancing in the right time zone on the same platform. All you can do is say that it may become that way in some nebulous future occurrence.
 
My argument stands because you have not actually rebutted the fact that when you aren't logged in, you cannot work against someone.
? Like I said, its opportunistic. Thats how Open works generally. In an Open PP context it means you fight who you see and go to the places where they might be. The difference is that players can actually provide an enemy that is lethal and disruptive, unlike currently where there is no enemy pushing back while you work.

Players work against each other when they are known to be there- station reports, merit totals allow real time monitoring. Its not as clear cut currently because modes are used, but if the proposed changes go through as is a mega (uncapped) UM hotspot would demand constant vigilance. The same can be said for fortification under the new rules- since everyone goes to the same place + uncapped UM you have a constant stream of players where you know where they will be and when- especially around tick time.

I did postulate that Powers might use the behaviors of other powers to evade, since powers have a good idea of how rivals work. However with the numbers that are required in Powerplay you can't do this for long, and that as tick day draws closer you can't do this.

This argument also stands because you very carefully SUPPOSE, as opposed to knowing.
You do know the Powerplay UI is real time, yes? Each station has UM reports in real time, and helpful icons pop up when UM is happening. Anyone who is a friend also is marked on the map, and in the proposal above I also mark deserters from your power).

You also have limited areas where others will be- preparations, expansions etc are hardly above 3 in number. This is not the BGS where action and effect are disconnected. In Powerplay you can see someone UM, fly away and dock, all the time watch the UM count go up.

You also seem to forget Powerplay is a team activity. Groups have plans and can be in many places at once. Its not just you.

Kinda disproving your own argument for an Open environment, hmm?
Er, no. Just telling you what it would be under the new rules- opportunistic. The difference is you have the power to log in and (instancing / P2P aside) know where people will be. Thats miles better than knowing where they are but are unable to stop them at all, leading to the 'hot-dog eating competition' problem.

So, your desire for an Open Only should trump the legal consideration of discriminating against anyone that doesn't pay for this element of gameplay? The majority argument is a fallacy because each player is supposed to have the same legal rights within the gaming environment.
No, FD can change what they like, when they like. All they have to do is tell you in advance (like they have in the past for Mac, VR in the future).

Circular reasoning using the argument to prove the argument (9 to 3), and a hope that your solution will be implemented...
Is it? Cross play is more common and a possibility, online components are becoming free (MS with Halo for example). Wishful thinking? Yes, but its happening right now. And at the very least each platform has players for each Power that can directly fight each other- remember its a team game. Having three opens means on each platform the same is going on at a reduced scale, rather than having unlimited commanders sat in PG AFK turretboating.

Except that even your own statements don't support this position because you cannot guarantee instancing in the right time zone on the same platform. All you can do is say that it may become that way in some nebulous future occurrence.
You make it out to be some freak event when things line up, while EDs networking is not the best, its also not like some Escher like maze.

If it was so bad, why do things like this happen?


In an Open Powerplay this would happen a lot more.

Powers work to the plans they make, not to time zones. Plus, the powers I've led or worked in have players from various time zones anyway. Australia, US, Germany, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Russia, UK, France, Poland, Spain- its not just a few people in the UK. The PC takes the lions share of players, but groups and power supporting squadrons on XB and PS exist and are active.

Plus, Open will fix Powerplay, in overt as well as subtle ways, or at least push it in a direction that makes it unique rather than a pale BGS imitation.

Some short examples:

It will make meta transport ships a risk (i.e. not all deliveries will be successful, leading to fort efficiency <100%). This will make large empires hard to hold because you can't guarantee when or if transports will get through (so you won't get the current trench warfare). Pilots have the choice of using faster but less capable transports (forting is slower) or having pilots in overwatch disrupting attackers. Remember uncapped UM means fortification does not stop at 100%- which means more and more players are funneled into these systems.

Open PP actually makes FCs a risk as they cluster vulnerable ships together. FCs take time to jump, much slower than ships who can get there. Ships take off, get smacked with reverb, ion and they go pop.

Prep races for systems can now be directly disrupted. In the past its been an expensive slog racing against large powers- in this case you have a cheaper alternative to slow your opposition down.

Teamwork: you will need to scout better and have better co-ordination between players to win- attackers have to be occupied while fortification runs happen, haulers for prep protected- but all this can change dynamically based on need if other players come in and disrupt.

Powerplay in Open would have periods of chaos and dynamism mixed with calm- not everywhere will be a bloodbath. The key though is that you never know what spot will turn ugly and when with uncapped UM strikes, or raids on shipping. Powerplay today lacks this dynamism but an Open based solution provides it.
 
If console players don't have a MP pass, then surely that is on them, rather than restricting the game for the rest of us?

CMDRs without Horizons shouldn't have access to planets - can't see how Console players without MP access would have access to Powerplay.

In any case, in the OPs version there is still an aspect of PP they can do from solo so this tired old argument referring to a very small amount of players is surely moot?
 
@Rubbernuke : Sorry - did not read your entire post. You are making well thought out comment to a situation, which exists since FDEV broke their promise of a single player game. Working and building up your account in SOLO, and then go pester other people in MP modes with a suddenly emerging strong CMDR was entirely foreseeable, and ignored. This is what this all is about, IMHO.

Now often people interested in power play, and the other few options to influence the world as a player ask for removal of SOLO players influence, since they are invisible movers, and cannot easy be countered. This problem exists from the beginning, it was designed into the game, since they did want a money generating MP game without knowing about MP games and the problems and solutions, IMHO.

My take on this entire dilemma: Separate MP and SOLO. Give every account two characters maximum, instead of one. Every account can have ONE SOLO character, with certain limits, not influencing but only seeing changes in the world. This SOLO character can never be transferred to MP. Never. It will always stay SOLO. And another character, who cannot be played in SOLO, only on OPEN modes. (How it works with PGs should be determined, but PG is not SOLO).
You can always transfer your character from MP to SOLO, provided you have no character in SOLO yet. But you can never transfer a character from SOLO to MP. This way pure SOLO players like me would just use one character in SOLO, and everybody could learn the game with a SOLO character, but if s/he wants to go MP, s/he needs to create a new character in MP.

FDEV could implement this, and at the start every existing character is automatically in MP. Players who prefer SOLO can transfer this character immediately to SOLO. Transferring always includes all the ships and credits, engineering and won modules and permits. Or they can stay in MP and continue to play, but without SOLO mode with this character.

This way FDEV would keep the promise of a single player game. But they would also be forced to separate the two modes and make slightly different rules. Because for a player preferring single player ED stinks. To much grind, too much fiddling around with things, which are only required in MP. It would make both modes better games, IMHO.

But I do not hold my breath. After stopping to play a year before, I still watch from time to time. They still just ignore every player input, including bug reports they do not like or not know how to fix. I will wait several months and watch, what Odyssey will bring, how buggy it is, and if they managed to make game out of this simulation. I do not hold my breath for Odyssey too. Pity.

Sorry for chiming in, it is meant constructive, even if not an answer to every of your points.
 
Rather than a direct reduction in player trust for them voting for poor systems, could the effect of 5C players not just be sharply reduced by simply applying some kind of modifier to the effectiveness of their vote based on the CC potential of the system?

Fairly average systems give a multiplier of 1, poor systems might have a multiplier of 0.5 and negative systems would go below 0.1. Meanwhile, strongly profitable systems might have multipliers of 2 or more. It could follow a simple exponential scaling formula to give flat multiplier to vote effectivness, which would allow both positive and negative CC values to follow the same formula.

Such a system wouldn't stop people doing 5C voting, but it would render them pretty ineffective as votes for good systems would be an order of magnitude more effective than votes for bad ones.
 
Rather than a direct reduction in player trust for them voting for poor systems, could the effect of 5C players not just be sharply reduced by simply applying some kind of modifier to the effectiveness of their vote based on the CC potential of the system?

Fairly average systems give a multiplier of 1, poor systems might have a multiplier of 0.5 and negative systems would go below 0.1. Meanwhile, strongly profitable systems might have multipliers of 2 or more. It could follow a simple exponential scaling formula to give flat multiplier to vote effectivness, which would allow both positive and negative CC values to follow the same formula.

Such a system wouldn't stop people doing 5C voting, but it would render them pretty ineffective as votes for good systems would be an order of magnitude more effective than votes for bad ones.
Sandros proposal did do just that- however it does not go far enough hence the Trust value which also allows automatic de-pledging of 5C.
 
Top Bottom