Powerplay Powerplay Solo/Private Exploit Problem

That depends on whether one likes to engage in PvP - as playing a game all comes down to "fun" and, for some, PvP there is no "fun" in engaging in PvP.

The PowerPlay concept was designed by Frontier - that players have possibly interpreted it differently or seek to attach different meaning to it is another matter.

If players in Open encounter opposing players then there may, depending on relative ability, ship, loadout, Engineering, be more risk.

Players that encounter no-one in Open face no additional risk.

I think there is some sort of disconnect when people say PvP- in general PvP is random while in Powerplay its for a reason and structured; you are there to do a job and since Powerplay is 100% player driven it makes sense to have 100% of players in the same dimension of space.

People bleat that they were killed in Open for no reason- well in PP you are killed because you are not 'one of us'- its gang warfare. In a PP context, PvP is not just killing, is evasion, hiding, tactics and teaming up with others.

IMO Frontier are wrong, after seeing both sides it makes for poor logic having a mode that bypasses all the threat. The beauty of Powerplay is that you consent to it, so if you seek this sort of game then it would make an ideal way to experience it.

Players that encounter no-one in Open face no additional risk.

Really? Instancing aside if you are alone then great, you are lucky. The threat of danger is still there- its like U boats, they could pop up at any time in CZs, Navs, stations. The threat simply becomes implied but its a proper threat, and not an NPC Eagle with pulse lasers.
 
Cool, a thread about this on the Powerplay section. Gives me the opportunity to test the waters for some brainfart I had a while ago and get some feedback.

Since the desire is to have content that encourages PvP coupled with the desire to preserve content for PvE, some time ago I wondered whether it might be a solution to split Powerplay influence in 2 part. Military influence, civilian influence.

Civilian influence is the way Powerplay's influence works at the moment. So the PvE content will remain the same as it is. Military influence is determined by skirmishes between pilots of the Pilot Federation, plus control over some strategic point in a system. The latter to tempt other players out to defend that strategic point. Whether that's a nav beacon or the most important station in the system.

Both military and civilian influence count towards control over systems. You can have a system whose citizens have an allegiance to Team B, but the military influence of Team A means the system is under military oppression. On the other hand, if Team B accumulates enough civilian influence it can decide to revolt and no longer be bossed around by Team A military.

Example:
Team A is looking for military dominance over Team B. Team A is scouting the relevant systems, but there's no Team B players around. By taking control over the strategic point and destroying Team A's ships (NPCs) military influence will slowly accumulate, triggering Team B to either go out there and do something about it, or work extra hard to increase civilian influence to overcome the military influence. When Team B decides to respond, you will get PvP action around that strategic point and the results of that will weigh heavy on the military influence, since it involved Pilot Federation member fighting each other.

Actions in Open can be countered in Solo/PG, action in Solo/PG can be countered by actions in Open. Plus the strategic point will alert players in all modes somethings going down in Open and could be an incentive to engage in Open without removing PvE content. I feel it would be better for the game if interaction between modes is introduced rather than features from modes were removed.

And that's just adversary aspect, because to most efficiently gain control over a system a combination of civilian and military (hearts and minds coupled with shock and awe) operations will work best. So there will also be cooperation between players in different modes.

So, that's the idea. But I don't play power, so it's likely I'm talking ballcocks.

A nice idea, and sort of happens now in Powerplay with gov types dictating how easy or hard it is to take over that area. Plus, some powers expand peacefully too.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
I think there is some sort of disconnect when people say PvP- in general PvP is random while in Powerplay its for a reason and structured; you are there to do a job and since Powerplay is 100% player driven it makes sense to have 100% of players in the same dimension of space.

People bleat that they were killed in Open for no reason- well in PP you are killed because you are not 'one of us'- its gang warfare. In a PP context, PvP is not just killing, is evasion, hiding, tactics and teaming up with others.

IMO Frontier are wrong, after seeing both sides it makes for poor logic having a mode that bypasses all the threat. The beauty of Powerplay is that you consent to it, so if you seek this sort of game then it would make an ideal way to experience it.

The BGS is player driven too - and has been implemented such that all players both experience and affect it, regardless of game mode or platform - just like PowerPlay.

To go right back to the beginning, if Frontier had wanted PowerPlay to be Open only then they'd have implemented it that way over two and a half years ago. They didn't.

It is obvious that some players have issues with Frontier's approach to multi-player and the use of indirect PvP (where those players much prefer direct PvP) - however Frontier's stance does not seem to have changed in the (over) five years since it became obvious that direct PvP was going to be entirely optional.

From Sandro's post that I quoted above:

Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present.

Sandro has also described PowerPlay as offering opportunities for consensual PvP - and it does, between those that choose to engage in it and choose to play in Open. Neither is mandatory.
 
Cool, a thread about this on the Powerplay section. Gives me the opportunity to test the waters for some brainfart I had a while ago and get some feedback.

Since the desire is to have content that encourages PvP coupled with the desire to preserve content for PvE, some time ago I wondered whether it might be a solution to split Powerplay influence in 2 part. Military influence, civilian influence.

Civilian influence is the way Powerplay's influence works at the moment. So the PvE content will remain the same as it is. Military influence is determined by skirmishes between pilots of the Pilot Federation, plus control over some strategic point in a system. The latter to tempt other players out to defend that strategic point. Whether that's a nav beacon or the most important station in the system.

Both military and civilian influence count towards control over systems. You can have a system whose citizens have an allegiance to Team B, but the military influence of Team A means the system is under military oppression. On the other hand, if Team B accumulates enough civilian influence it can decide to revolt and no longer be bossed around by Team A military.

Example:
Team A is looking for military dominance over Team B. Team A is scouting the relevant systems, but there's no Team B players around. By taking control over the strategic point and destroying Team A's ships (NPCs) military influence will slowly accumulate, triggering Team B to either go out there and do something about it, or work extra hard to increase civilian influence to overcome the military influence. When Team B decides to respond, you will get PvP action around that strategic point and the results of that will weigh heavy on the military influence, since it involved Pilot Federation member fighting each other.

Actions in Open can be countered in Solo/PG, action in Solo/PG can be countered by actions in Open. Plus the strategic point will alert players in all modes somethings going down in Open and could be an incentive to engage in Open without removing PvE content. I feel it would be better for the game if interaction between modes is introduced rather than features from modes were removed.

And that's just adversary aspect, because to most efficiently gain control over a system a combination of civilian and military (hearts and minds coupled with shock and awe) operations will work best. So there will also be cooperation between players in different modes.

So, that's the idea. But I don't play power, so it's likely I'm talking ballcocks.


This idea really sounds good. I would encourage Frontier to invest some time and work to make this idea true. The thing is, to me it seems that this idea would need some major programming-time to realize it. Tweaking modes would be an easy way to regulate some stuff.

Since we are talking about a quality game, I sincerly hope Frontier will take some quality programming-time for powerplay, so that pvp and pve players can both enjoy this game-feature.
But on the other hand - when I am looking at the slow overall progress the game is making... I think we are delving in high dreams here. Still I would be very happy if Frontier would allocate some ressources to make powerplay enjoyable for once. But - if you care to look on past events, it seems powerplay is one of the very last priorities for Frontier.

So whatever we are talking about here, I'd prefer to stay optimistic. But I am not.
 
Last edited:
The BGS is player driven too - and has been implemented such that all players both experience and affect it, regardless of game mode or platform - just like PowerPlay.

To go right back to the beginning, if Frontier had wanted PowerPlay to be Open only then they'd have implemented it that way over two and a half years ago. They didn't.

It is obvious that some players have issues with Frontier's approach to multi-player and the use of indirect PvP (where those players much prefer direct PvP) - however Frontier's stance does not seem to have changed in the (over) five years since it became obvious that direct PvP was going to be entirely optional.

People can change their minds? Sandro himself had a crisis of faith over it. Engineers has changed for 3.0, why not PP? It needs a radical overhaul to keep it relevant and logical.

Sandro has also described PowerPlay as offering opportunities for consensual PvP - and it does, between those that choose to engage in it and choose to play in Open. Neither is mandatory.

OK, a burglar comes round and robs your house. You are in the kitchen, take out a rolling pin and smack them on the head and call the police.

The next day you sit down for breakfast, only to find the cornflakes have gone, along with your TV, sofa and car which is driving down the road. You look in the car window and see an empty seat. How do you fight back? You can't.

What you highlight is a problem across the board in ED. I punished a player group once by sitting outside their station and killed about 50 security ships a day to tank them. This was in solo, which is allowed but is it ethical? They can't fight back to stop the root cause (me) so they have to go the long way round and chase influence anonymously. I get people don't want confrontation, but giving that option simply pushes people away from each other. Conceptually it may seem sound, but when you have to outprep an invisible solo 5C 'player' to the tune of millions + hours of time its annoying when there is a good chance you can track them down in open to either talk them down or kill them. Quite often in the latter they go to solo and carry on.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
People can change their minds? Sandro himself had a crisis of faith over it. Engineers has changed for 3.0, why not PP? It needs a radical overhaul to keep it relevant and logical.

Indeed they can, and do, change their minds, about some things. Engineers is a timely example. The excesses of RNG have been removed in favour of guaranteed improvements and improved accessibility.

No such movement on the three game modes and every player both experiencing and affecting the economy and political landscape of the galaxy at this time.


OK, a burglar comes round and robs your house. You are in the kitchen, take out a rolling pin and smack them on the head and call the police.

The next day you sit down for breakfast, only to find the cornflakes have gone, along with your TV, sofa and car which is driving down the road. You look in the car window and see an empty seat. How do you fight back? You can't.

RL examples rarely work in the context of a game.

What you highlight is a problem across the board in ED. I punished a player group once by sitting outside their station and killed about 50 security ships a day to tank them. This was in solo, which is allowed but is it ethical? They can't fight back to stop the root cause (me) so they have to go the long way round and chase influence anonymously. I get people don't want confrontation, but giving that option simply pushes people away from each other. Conceptually it may seem sound, but when you have to outprep an invisible solo 5C 'player' to the tune of millions + hours of time its annoying when there is a good chance you can track them down in open to either talk them down or kill them. Quite often in the latter they go to solo and carry on.

Thankfully the disproportionate effects of destroying security vessels should be reduced with the advent of ATR - whose specific role seems to be to move players along once the game decides that they need moving on.
 
Ok Robert, given your caveated agreement that Powerplay in open is more difficult, I'll give you a challenge.

Go to the next federal or Imperial expansion, pledge to a side and start fighting for merits in open.

Let us all know whether it is as easy as you find it in solo or PG.

I can arrange protection wings for you from your chosen power. (Although given how you carry on here I'm going to have to bend their arms to not kill you on sight).
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Ok Robert, given your caveated agreement that Powerplay in open is more difficult, I'll give you a challenge.

Go to the next federal or Imperial expansion, pledge to a side and start fighting for merits in open.

Let us all know whether it is as easy as you find it in solo or PG.

There's no need. I have already acknowledged that risk is increased in the presence of CMDR opposition.

That potential encounter risk is entirely voluntary though. My point being that those that seek it can choose to play in Open, however they cannot dictate to other players how they should play.

I can arrange protection wings for you from your chosen power. (Although given how you carry on here I'm going to have to bend their arms to not kill you on sight).

Yes indeed - which is why my Open only CMDR name is unknown to anyone (apart from me, of course).
 
Last edited:
Thankfully the disproportionate effects of destroying security vessels should be reduced with the advent of ATR - whose specific role seems to be to move players along once the game decides that they need moving on.

ATR won't stop this. BGS wise (off topic) it simply makes it take longer to achieve since ATR response is tied to sec level. Even then in most systems ATR respond too slowly to actually attack you.

In Powerplay, if I along with 10 other solo guys farm 20k in undermining merits, sit on them in Solo and snipe another power on Thursday morning, does that make for a good experience? Powerplay has no way to tell you you are under attack unless you either see someone killing or they cash in merits, otherwise its just another sunny Thursday.

In Open your choice is to log off for x days to be totally safe, go far away from the action, or risk it all. Two of those 3 options gives the opposition a chance to fight back and create a dynamic situation. The third still gives the possibility of destruction and nullifying those attacks while the merits are collected. Hence, Solo simply encourages farming and low grade gameplay.

People in Powerplay get frustrated as you can't fight an enemy you can't see- instead of fighting opponents directly you must fight them indirectly. People complain that Powerplay is stale and grindy, well it is when you remove the most potent parts of it- us the players.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
ATR won't stop this. BGS wise (off topic) it simply makes it take longer to achieve since ATR response is tied to sec level. Even then in most systems ATR respond too slowly to actually attack you.

We'll see in due course.

In Powerplay, if I along with 10 other solo guys farm 20k in undermining merits, sit on them in Solo and snipe another power on Thursday morning, does that make for a good experience? Powerplay has no way to tell you you are under attack unless you either see someone killing or they cash in merits, otherwise its just another sunny Thursday.

Rather than alienate Solo and Private Group PowerPlayers, could / should something not be done to offer hints regarding undelivered opposition merits outstanding?

In Open your choice is to log off for x days to be totally safe, go far away from the action, or risk it all. Two of those 3 options gives the opposition a chance to fight back and create a dynamic situation. The third still gives the possibility of destruction and nullifying those attacks while the merits are collected. Hence, Solo simply encourages farming and low grade gameplay.

People in Powerplay get frustrated as you can't fight an enemy you can't see- instead of fighting opponents directly you must fight them indirectly. People complain that Powerplay is stale and grindy, well it is when you remove the most potent parts of it- us the players.

I do understand this POV however I don't share the same opinion(s) as to how it could / should be changed.

Restricting PowerPlay to Open only would seem, to me at least, to be a non-starter because:
1) Everyone who bought the base game has had access to PowerPlay, regardless of play-style preference, for over two and a half years.
2) Not all players (the majority, according to one Dev post) engage in PvP.
3) Players on consoles without a premium platform access subscription can only play in Solo.

Sandro did, of course, muse on the forums (March 2016) regarding a possible bonus to the recipient Power for merits handed in in Open. In December 2016 he said that there were no plans to do so.

Frontier might want players to interact more - the Chapter 1 changes to C&P and Engineering would seem to be working towards that goal - however they don't force players to interact and designed the game accordingly. That their stance is frustrating to those that prefer direct PvP is obvious. That it was clear from the outset that this game was not designed to be dominated by PvP is also obvious.
 
It would only effect Powerplay, not the rest of the players.

If you don't participate in Powerplay you are not going to be aware of anything different.

YOU yourself won't know any different because you don't do Powerplay.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
It would only effect Powerplay, not the rest of the players.

If you don't participate in Powerplay you are not going to be aware of anything different.

YOU yourself won't know any different because you don't do Powerplay.

It would affect any PowerPlayers, new or existing, that don't choose to partake in direct PvP - by forcing them to play in Open to be able to participate.

It would affect any console players that don't have premium platform access - they bought the whole game too, even if they can only play in Solo.
 
Rather than alienate Solo and Private Group PowerPlayers, could / should something not be done to offer hints regarding undelivered opposition merits outstanding?

Its possible, but it takes dev time from FD and they have been silent on it. Many ideas have been put forward, but it still sidesteps the issue in that you have to fight someone indirectly again rather than scramble a response and kill the intruder.

I do understand this POV however I don't share the same opinion(s) as to how it could / should be changed.

Restricting PowerPlay to Open only would seem, to me at least, to be a non-starter because:
1) Everyone who bought the base game has had access to PowerPlay, regardless of play-style preference, for over two and a half years.
2) Not all players (the majority, according to one Dev post) engage in PvP.
3) Players on consoles without a premium platform access subscription can only play in Solo.

Sandro did, of course, muse on the forums (March 2016) regarding a possible bonus to the recipient Power for merits handed in in Open. In December 2016 he said that there were no plans to do so.

Frontier might want players to interact more - the Chapter 1 changes to C&P and Engineering would seem to be working towards that goal - however they don't force players to interact and designed the game accordingly. That their stance is frustrating to those that prefer direct PvP is obvious. That it was clear from the outset that this game was not designed to be dominated by PvP is also obvious.

I did not realise our console cousins have to pay to go into Open, so I'll concede that one.

Again, I'd challenge the term PvP in this context. Its more like PvP+ in that you have to be ready for anything, where you'll meet all sorts of setups that fall outside strict PvP loadouts. If you define PvP as strict 1v1, 2v2 organised games then I'd agree with you. However, do you count simply shooting someone else as PvP?
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Its possible, but it takes dev time from FD and they have been silent on it. Many ideas have been put forward, but it still sidesteps the issue in that you have to fight someone indirectly again rather than scramble a response and kill the intruder.

It would take Dev time - which would seem to be, from what Sandro has said previously, challenging to prioritise for a a game feature that would not seem to be heavily used.

The sidestep took place before the KS launched - Frontier decided that the only unavoidable PvP in their game would be indirect PvP - the three modes / single shared galaxy state ensure that direct PvP is entirely optional.

I did not realise our console cousins have to pay to go into Open, so I'll concede that one.

:)

Again, I'd challenge the term PvP in this context. Its more like PvP+ in that you have to be ready for anything, where you'll meet all sorts of setups that fall outside strict PvP loadouts. If you define PvP as strict 1v1, 2v2 organised games then I'd agree with you. However, do you count simply shooting someone else as PvP?

Yes, simply shooting at someone is PvP - of the direct kind.
 
You couldn't just make your point without being offensive?

:rolleyes:

My combat ranking at the moment is Novice, and I don't particularly enjoy combat in general. My limited participation in PvP tournaments indicates that I'm not particularly good at that either. Combat, whether PvE or PvP, simply is an activity I find tolerable in small doses, assuming I'm in the mood to begin with.

And despite all that, I still feel secure enough when faced by the kind of player who preferentially attacks unarmed traders that I'll let them interdict me multiple times, just to see how long it takes before they can take a hint. I figure if they're bothering me, they're not bothering anyone else. Record was seven, and I had to send them the message, "You are aware I'm willing to do this all the way to the station, aren't you?" before they gave up.

I spent a month doing fortification runs, in Open, when Powerplay first came out. I was interdicted twice during that time. Both times, I escaped with minimal damage. More importantly, both encounters were enjoyable, because both players treated me like an actual human opponent. I unpledged not because of massive human opposition, because there wasn't any Powerplay missions. I simply don't like the current options to earn merits, and I saw no point in enduring more frequent NPC interdictions if I couldn't earn merits via the mission system. But I didn't have to abandon Powerplay completely. I saw a much better, and more importantly fun, way to help my Power by manipulating the BGS to reduce fortification costs, than grinding away at ABA cargo runs.

Everything I know about how this game works, from how the matchmaker works, to how the BGS and Powerplay works, to my own experiences in this game, combined with 20+ years of playing MMOs similar to Open mode Elite, tells me that the whole notion of patrolling a system to stop bad actors is a losing strategy. In online games such as ED, the advantage will always go to the aggressor, who gets to choose when, where, and how many, while the defender has to spread themselves thin, in an effort to cover everywhere 24/7.

This is doubly true when it comes to Powerplay, which is all about moving PvE tokens. Every minute you spend patrolling a system in the vague hopes of catching somebody is a minute you're not moving said PvE tokens. Yes, you may stop someone, but the merits you may have cost someone is inconsequential compared to the merits you could've earned your power.

All of that is why I consider this whole "Open Only" thing to be an excuse on the part of a certain type of player who requires pure PvE players to be their content, because they cannot handle actual PvPers, or even players like me, who sit between the two extremes. They desperately want to pretend they are 1337 PvPers, but lack the skills to take on the real thing, so they only attack PvE players instead. They play at moral outrage, calling the mode system "an exploit," "cheap," or "unfair," but refuse to acknowledge why this fantasy they spin about how much better Powerplay would be if only those darn PvEers would stop "hiding" in other modes won't work, given the realities of online gaming, and how matchmaking in this game works. More importantly, refuse to acknowledge that the players who play in other modes besides Open aren't likely to move to Open if Powerplay goes Open Only. All that will happen is that they'll quit playing Powerplay entirely, which would be the final nail in Powerplay's coffin, destroying the very thing they claim they want to save.
 
If thats the case I simply don't understand why FD ever bothered with Powerplay- what is its job if its not to get people fighting? From what you argue Powerplay is a question waiting for an answer from another unspoken question.

If BGS manipulation fits the scope of conflict required by FDs definition of group play, why go further than that?
 
It would affect any PowerPlayers, new or existing, that don't choose to partake in direct PvP - by forcing them to play in Open to be able to participate.

It would affect any console players that don't have premium platform access - they bought the whole game too, even if they can only play in Solo.

If they can change the C&P system they can change this.

I'm not going to play Powerplay in solo. It's not fair for the players that I'm opposing and not in the spirit it's meant to be.

I'm still happy to assist you with open opposition so you can understand what it is like. It is the most fun and engaging part of the game, solo/Pg players like rubbernuke agree with this, so why can't you?
 
Last edited:

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
If thats the case I simply don't understand why FD ever bothered with Powerplay- what is its job if its not to get people fighting? From what you argue Powerplay is a question waiting for an answer from another unspoken question.

If BGS manipulation fits the scope of conflict required by FDs definition of group play, why go further than that?

I don't know either - however, as Sandro says, it offers opportunities for consensual PvP - it does not, however, require it.

That'd be for the Design Team to comment on.
 
Back
Top Bottom