Powerplay Powerplay Solo/Private Exploit Problem

[Robert Maynard]

Your first point about NPCs is irrelevant to increasing rewards for playing in open. This isn't a discussion about NPC difficulty, or perhaps you have misunderstood one of my points.

The argument seems to be about players offering a greater challenge than NPCs. Therefore NPC difficulty is entirely relevant, in my opinion of course.

Encountered risk? I think you mean encountered hazard there, and a hazard is not the same as a risk. A risk is the possibility of harm, a hazard is the thing that causes you harm. To clarify, in this case the risk is being in open (possibility to encounter hostile players), and the hazard is a hostile player. Whether the hazard is encountered is irrelevent to basic risk assessment, where precautions are taken and bonuses rewarded because you are exposed to additional risk, not just compensated when you encounter a hazard. It's comparable to some jobs having inceased pay as a reward because of the increased dangers involved. Solo and open are not the same because the risk is different by design. A blanket bonus would, therefore, be appropriate by accounting for risk.

Thanks for the terminological correction. NPCs are also a hazard in the game. The outcome is the same, ship destruction, when the player suffers a loss in a hostile encounter. So the basis of the comparison seems to be relative levels of probability of a hostile encounter and the hazard posed by the encountered situation. Averaged over the galaxy the risk associated with player encounters is rather small (as the average player density per system is tiny), in hot-spots it's rather high (as players seeking player targets seek out places where players congregate).

Not all jobs where there is a risk of death pay the same though - so that seems to take probability of a hazardous situation occurring into account too.

You could also apply that same risk reward to mission. So if you're doing an assassination contract in a corvette you get a lower pay than a sidewinder. That could be interesting to gameplay, unless you assume the NPC is basing the reward on your skill/reputation as a pilot such as through combat rank. That would certainly make things interesting, but is very different reducing the risk to completely removing the risk by mode. A very good idea though.

Modes only remove the risk of player encounter (well, Solo guarantees that, whereas even in large PvE Private Groups there are (soon-to-be-ex) members who "forget" the rules from time-to-time), not all risk.

Regarding the challenge offered by each mode, Sandro had this to say:

Hello Commander Ozram!

I think you are perhaps conflating two separate issues: the amount of challenge present in each game mode, and player versus player interactions. I think these are so fundamentally different that comparisons might not be particularly useful.

The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at.

However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. 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. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to. We don't want everyone to play in Open because we want some sort of Armageddon PvP scenario. We just think that playing with other people, both cooperatively *and* adversarial, can be more fun, which is why we advocate Open play.

So in the context of a karma system, people playing in Private Group or Solo mode are not relevant. Why should folk in Open be interested in what goes on there? This is about making player versus player interactions more equitable *in Open*, getting more folk in there, surely?

A risk based payment model for missions would be a very interesting development - as the bored player in the meta-Engineered tank build would be paid less than the player who completed the same mission in a lesser ship. That, in itself, might very well incentivise players seeking challenge.

The collusion piracy changes as you point out have indeed been implemented in game, so we can see what the future will bring.

Indeed.

 

[stormyuk]

This again? Seriously?

 

[Stigbob]

PvP pilots dislike CQC because it’s utterly disconnected from your main ships and progress, uses only some of the skills that PvP in the main game requires, and has very little diversity and nothing interesting at stake.

It wouldn't work with main ships as it would be unbalanced, in terms of nothing interesting at stake that's the idea with nothing to lose people should in theory be more willing to jump in. In a game as rife with cash exploits as ED it's not like rebuy counts as anything being at stake.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It wouldn't work with main ships as it would be unbalanced, in terms of nothing interesting at stake that's the idea with nothing to lose people should in theory be more willing to jump in. In a game as rife with cash exploits as ED it's not like rebuy counts as anything being at stake.

It would be interesting if the relative "power" (as Sandro defined it in his Collusion Piracy thread) of the ships on either side of the encounter was taken into account when calculating rewards - as the top end meta-Engineered [insert medium / large ship here] CMDR would receive less than the less Engineered [insert small ship here] CMDR.

 

[Stigbob]

It would be interesting if the relative "power" (as Sandro defined it in his Collusion Piracy thread) of the ships on either side of the encounter was taken into account when calculating rewards - as the top end meta-Engineered [insert medium / large ship here] CMDR would receive less than the less Engineered [insert small ship here] CMDR.

Yeah that would be more interesting, or a lobby system where even(ish) main game ships were matched together should be fairly simple to implement. You could wager support for a faction with a win gaining you rep/military rank and maybe even a loss losing it.

I guess FDEV just think it's not worth the bother given the lack of interest.

 

[Arkadi]

I think there was qutie a lot of interest when powerplay started, but since it didn't see any real attention sice start, interest dwindled. I am only assuming ofc. I did no statistics on this, but activity on redits was very high in the poweprlay peak-years 3301-3302, if I remember right

 

[Memau]

The argument seems to be about players offering a greater challenge than NPCs. Therefore NPC difficulty is entirely relevant, in my opinion of course.



Thanks for the terminological correction. NPCs are also a hazard in the game. The outcome is the same, ship destruction, when the player suffers a loss in a hostile encounter. So the basis of the comparison seems to be relative levels of probability of a hostile encounter and the hazard posed by the encountered situation. Averaged over the galaxy the risk associated with player encounters is rather small (as the average player density per system is tiny), in hot-spots it's rather high (as players seeking player targets seek out places where players congregate).

Not all jobs where there is a risk of death pay the same though - so that seems to take probability of a hazardous situation occurring into account too.



Modes only remove the risk of player encounter (well, Solo guarantees that, whereas even in large PvE Private Groups there are (soon-to-be-ex) members who "forget" the rules from time-to-time), not all risk.

Regarding the challenge offered by each mode, Sandro had this to say:



A risk based payment model for missions would be a very interesting development - as the bored player in the meta-Engineered tank build would be paid less than the player who completed the same mission in a lesser ship. That, in itself, might very well incentivise players seeking challenge.



Indeed.

NPCs do not know and do not focus on turning up in large numbers in the systems that would be PowerPlay hotspots in each cycle. This is only something players do, by looking at what is hong on in game and decinding to go and disrupt the actions of an enemy Power. Maybe in the wider game NPCs come into the argument, but without them having the ability to think and have different spawn rates in different systems during different cycles depending on what is going on (I would not even suggest they even think about trying to bring in something like this), the risk in PowerPlay ultimately comes from players. NPCs are just an annoyance and the risk of NPCs disrupting PowerPlay actions is identical in all modes, so can essentially be ignored for this discussion. There is no difference.it might be important to point out here that PowerPlay is player driven and NPCs do not to contribute or earn PowerPlay merits, their role is limited to being destroyed during undermining to give players merits.

This also ties into your point about probabilities of hostile encounters. For PowerPlay systems are always going to have higher concentrations of players in open, such as HQs, systems being prepared, systems being expanded, systems being fortified and systems being undermined. Applying an "if we average it out over the galaxy" approach simply does not work because of this. The risk might be less in a Power's exploited system rather than a controlled system, but that is not where the PowerPlay actions (fortification/preparation/expansion/undermining) take place. These only ever take place in controlled/potentially controlled system, and as such the number of systems is reduced from the entire galaxy to the 729 controlled systems plus whatever the number of systems currently under preparation/expansion (let's call this 740 to account for that for reasons). That is where PowerPlay merits are earned. So averaged over the galaxy the risk from others might be small, but averaged over the 740 systems where PowerPlay takes place, the risk is going to be higher. I am very glad that you agree that there is a higher risk in hotspots such as these, and hopefully seeing the numbers of systems involved you can understand the issue. A negligible risk of meeting an enemy player is suddenly a significant risk (even higher in HQs) and this causes a problem when some players can completely avoid this risk but their merits still have the same impact on their Power.

 

[withnail]

This again? Seriously?

The answer to this would surely be some development time spent on Powerplay.

Or canning it completely.

 

[Robert Maynard]

NPCs do not know and do not focus on turning up in large numbers in the systems that would be PowerPlay hotspots in each cycle. This is only something players do, by looking at what is hong on in game and decinding to go and disrupt the actions of an enemy Power. Maybe in the wider game NPCs come into the argument, but without them having the ability to think and have different spawn rates in different systems during different cycles depending on what is going on (I would not even suggest they even think about trying to bring in something like this), the risk in PowerPlay ultimately comes from players. NPCs are just an annoyance and the risk of NPCs disrupting PowerPlay actions is identical in all modes, so can essentially be ignored for this discussion. There is no difference.it might be important to point out here that PowerPlay is player driven and NPCs do not to contribute or earn PowerPlay merits, their role is limited to being destroyed during undermining to give players merits.

This also ties into your point about probabilities of hostile encounters. For PowerPlay systems are always going to have higher concentrations of players in open, such as HQs, systems being prepared, systems being expanded, systems being fortified and systems being undermined. Applying an "if we average it out over the galaxy" approach simply does not work because of this. The risk might be less in a Power's exploited system rather than a controlled system, but that is not where the PowerPlay actions (fortification/preparation/expansion/undermining) take place. These only ever take place in controlled/potentially controlled system, and as such the number of systems is reduced from the entire galaxy to the 729 controlled systems plus whatever the number of systems currently under preparation/expansion (let's call this 740 to account for that for reasons). That is where PowerPlay merits are earned. So averaged over the galaxy the risk from others might be small, but averaged over the 740 systems where PowerPlay takes place, the risk is going to be higher. I am very glad that you agree that there is a higher risk in hotspots such as these, and hopefully seeing the numbers of systems involved you can understand the issue. A negligible risk of meeting an enemy player is suddenly a significant risk (even higher in HQs) and this causes a problem when some players can completely avoid this risk but their merits still have the same impact on their Power.

For players who play in Solo (and probably most Private Groups), NPCs are the only same-instance opposition in PowerPlay. That there is a contention that the only opposition comes from players is unsurprising - as some players find NPCs to be lacking challenge (whereas some players don't).

I've long agreed that there can be increased risk of destruction when players encounter each other - however calculating that risk includes lots of different factors and would be case-by-case and non-trivial.

The implementation of the whole game permits players to completely bypass other players - it's a consequence of Frontier's decision to make direct PvP optional.

 

[Jockey79]

I'm afraid you have got confused by this thread too. I want balance between open and PG in particular, not PVP.

When everyone has the same options to play PP, then it is a level playing field.

The only reason to force people in to open, is so you can shoot them (PvP) while they push their PvE tokens about.
So by shouting you want PP open only, you are asking for forced PvP - which was never part of the games design plan.

Remember, the heart of PP is consensual PvP - and it's only consensual if people have the choice NOT to PvP.

 

[Arkadi]

[...]

While Power Play is Elite's 'consensual PvP flag', it also heavily relies upon indirect team PvP, complete with the ability to cancel the other team's moves. There are few rewards for direct PvP, but post-3.0, minimal risks for direct PvP in PowerPlay compared to the rest of the galaxy.

While FDev has become notorious for removing credit-earning bonanzas, they rarely remove gameplay opportunities, and they've never broken their pre-launch promise of Solo and Open being the same gameplay. So it is unlikely that FDev will remove Power Play contributions from Solo and Private Group, because that will strip those participants of the ability to play on a team and support their Power.

Veteran Power Players want Open Mode confrontations to matter, to make a stronger impact on Power Play statistics than someone hauling for their team in a different dimension, and most importantly we want to encourage our team members to participate in Open with us, so we can fly in wings and have more fun.

With 3.0, Power Play activies and Power Bounties are entirely separate from the Crime and Punishment system. We are literally dueling it out under a separate law. Let us encourage FDev to use this separate law to figure out the best way to encourage Open Mode PvP.

• Don't punish anyone who doesn't use Open Mode.
• Don't reward Open Mode, but reward for surviving hostile PvP encounters.
• Increase the Power bounties incurred when PvP is asymmetrical, and reduce the monetary consequences when a victim of asymmetrical Power Play PvP.

You can justify these changes because the Powers can reimburse or reward CMDRs who lose ships in service of their cause.

Rather than spewing vitriol across the game modes, let's encourage FDev to work with us to devise a better system to encourage CMDRs to participate in Power Play in Open Mode.

I really think this idea could be a step forward that all camps and parties could agree on. It would make powerplay player combat less punishing and more rewarding.


It also wouldn't hurt if the new Power Bountie system was explained in game, in the power screen for example, so all cmdrs could see how it works, without going alt-tab. But the adept Elite Dangerous user is used to google stuff anyway...

remaining issues:
* AFK Turret Tanks
* Ghost Undermining - Bounty Board scouting improvements
* Fortifcation tediousness (30 min timers, click odysse)

 

[Jockey79]

I really think this idea could be a step forward that all camps and parties could agree on. It would make powerplay player combat less punishing and more rewarding.

Well, not really.

Any PvP specific rewards could be fiddled in PG.
And as Frontier have maintained for the past 4 years all modes are equal - they won't lock any content to one mode.

So adding a perk that can be gained via exploitation of networking or abusing the mode system would be pointless.

 

[Arkadi]

Ok, i see the problem. We can't have increased bounty payouts AND reduced rebuy for asymetrical pvp at the same time. Or at least only to a very finly balanced degree. Else it's prone to abuse.

So I change aspiringex' proposal (if I even got it right), to:

EITHER increased bounty payouts:
Asymetrical pvp means that only a Cmdr in a less potent ship would get the increase bounty pay out, if he wins against a bigger (or heavyer engineered) ship. Usually the deadlier ship is also the more expensive ship. This should be a natural counter to exploits, becouse the bounty gained will be less then the full 10M+ rebuy of a deadly PvP ship. That is true alone becouse I believe there still is the 2M bounty payout cap. If my logic is flawed, there still could be other safeguards maybe credit caps for those increased bountie pay outs. The ruleset for gaining increased powerplay bounty payouts from asymetrical pvp could be ruled in a way that this reward is only applicable if the destroyed commander had any active merits on board. This way there would be a bit more work and consequence for possible abusers (if they care about powreplay at all).

OR reduced rebuy costs:
Reduce rebuy in powerplay pvp combat to make the involvment into open powerplay a bit less punishing at least. This can't possibly be exploited.

-------------

I really think powerplay needs some help... and if it is only tiny bits of "good will". This might help parts of the community to endure a bit longer or to come back and find some new fun in engagement with this game-feature.

For me it's a big downer that I constantly see that my favored playstyle (powerplay in open) is the most useless by design. Since powerplay is competetive by design it's a bitter pill to swallow, I tell you that. I play most parts of the game only for the fun, but in powerplay I also have the ambition to "win". It's just foolish to try to win a battle that is won by PvE outfits with a PvP-ready outfit. Playing with a PvP outfit in open is a selfimposed disadvatage in powerplay as it is.

Details why this is the case have been worded all over again, in the discussion above and othre threads (min-max hauling, AFK turret boats NPC farming, BGS trigger sabotage, 5C sabotage, and possibly more)

So this is why I keep nagging that powerplay in open needs some incentive - besides of it being a fun way to play the game (and a good way to lose some money).

 

[Jockey79]

Ok, i see the problem. We can't have increased bounty payouts AND reduced rebuy for asymetrical pvp at the same time. Or at least only to a very finly balanced degree. Else it's prone to abuse.

So I change aspiringex' proposal (if I even got it right), to:

EITHER increased bounty payouts:
Asymetrical pvp means that only a Cmdr in a less potent ship would get the increase bounty pay out, if he wins against a bigger (or heavyer engineered) ship. Usually the deadlier ship is also the more expensive ship. This should be a natural counter to exploits, becouse the bounty gained will be less then the full 10M+ rebuy of a deadly PvP ship. That is true alone becouse I believe there still is the 2M bounty payout cap. If my logic is flawed, there still could be other safeguards maybe credit caps for those increased bountie pay outs. The ruleset for gaining increased powerplay bounty payouts from asymetrical pvp could be ruled in a way that this reward is only applicable if the destroyed commander had any active merits on board. This way there would be a bit more work and consequence for possible abusers (if they care about powreplay at all).

OR reduced rebuy costs:
Reduce rebuy in powerplay pvp combat to make the involvment into open powerplay a bit less punishing at least. This can't possibly be exploited.

-------------

I really think powerplay needs some help... and if it is only tiny bits of "good will". This might help parts of the community to endure a bit longer or to come back and find some new fun in engagement with this game-feature.

For me it's a big downer that I constantly see that my favored playstyle (powerplay in open) is the most useless by design. Since powerplay is competetive by design it's a bitter pill to swallow, I tell you that. I play most parts of the game only for the fun, but in powerplay I also have the ambition to "win". It's just foolish to try to win a battle that is won by PvE outfits with a PvP-ready outfit. Playing with a PvP outfit in open is a selfimposed disadvatage in powerplay as it is.

Details why this is the case have been worded all over again, in the discussion above and othre threads (min-max hauling, AFK turret boats NPC farming, BGS trigger sabotage, 5C sabotage, and possibly more)

So this is why I keep nagging that powerplay in open needs some incentive - besides of it being a fun way to play the game (and a good way to lose some money).

I like the re-buy option (though perhaps set to zero perhaps for PP kills, as your power pays for your stuff?), couple that with having players worth some merits then PvP in multiplayer modes has more of a reason and reward.

 

[Memau]

For players who play in Solo (and probably most Private Groups), NPCs are the only same-instance opposition in PowerPlay. That there is a contention that the only opposition comes from players is unsurprising - as some players find NPCs to be lacking challenge (whereas some players don't).

I've long agreed that there can be increased risk of destruction when players encounter each other - however calculating that risk includes lots of different factors and would be case-by-case and non-trivial.

The implementation of the whole game permits players to completely bypass other players - it's a consequence of Frontier's decision to make direct PvP optional.

I do not think it is true to describe NPCs as providing PowerPlay opposition. I think it is important to clarify that it is the risk of being directly opposed (by interdiction/combat/altering destination) that is critical for PowerPlay, and not just risk of being destroyed. This is one of the main reasons solo/PG are used by players/communities because by removing this opposition it allows players to maximise their merit output. A cobra can easily impede a fort cutter so the ship type/engineering is not always relevant to the risk. This cobra might not fare so well impeding an undermining corvette but it has the advantage of its speed and every minute it is distracting the corvette, the corvette isn't earning merits. The cobra does not even need weapons to directly oppose its enemy. It terms of ship destruction it poses very little risk, but it's impact on impeding a Power can be significant. This is the issue. It is also important to note here that unlike players, PowerPlay NPCs do not have an increased presence in critical systems (if they do I have never noticed), nor do they track you from system to system and repeatedly interdict you.

The risk of opposition from NPCs is equal in solo, private group and open are identical. Solo never has the risk of player opposition and private group has low risk as people can just select a safe group to avoid enemies. If people want to encounter enemies in private group I would ask why they want to use private group rather than open at that point, especially with C&P changes addressing the problem of griefers.

The game currently lets people choose to bypass other players by their choice of game mode and people should continue have the right to make that choice. That right, however, needs to be balanced with consequences for PowerPlay in particular as it is creating an un-level playing field. I hope this helps to explain exactly why this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I do not think it is true to describe NPCs as providing PowerPlay opposition.

I doubt that Frontier share that opinion.

I think it is important to clarify that it is the risk of being directly opposed (by interdiction/combat/altering destination) that is critical for PowerPlay, and not just risk of being destroyed. This is one of the main reasons solo/PG are used by players/communities because by removing this opposition it allows players to maximise their merit output. A cobra can easily impede a fort cutter so the ship type/engineering is not always relevant to the risk. This cobra might not fare so well impeding an undermining corvette but it has the advantage of its speed and every minute it is distracting the corvette, the corvette isn't earning merits. The cobra does not even need weapons to directly oppose its enemy. It terms of ship destruction it poses very little risk, but it's impact on impeding a Power can be significant. This is the issue. It is also important to note here that unlike players, PowerPlay NPCs do not have an increased presence in critical systems (if they do I have never noticed), nor do they track you from system to system and repeatedly interdict you.

Which is based on the opinion that NPCs provide no opposition.

The risk of opposition from NPCs is equal in solo, private group and open are identical. Solo never has the risk of player opposition and private group has low risk as people can just select a safe group to avoid enemies. If people want to encounter enemies in private group I would ask why they want to use private group rather than open at that point, especially with C&P changes addressing the problem of griefers.

As PowerPlay has been quite consciously implemented in all three game modes by Frontier, players are free to choose whichever mode suits them, for their own reasons - they don't have to choose a mode that other players might prefer them to choose.

The game currently lets people choose to bypass other players by their choice of game mode and people should continue have the right to make that choice. That right, however, needs to be balanced with consequences for PowerPlay in particular as it is creating an un-level playing field. I hope this helps to explain exactly why this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The playing field is level (i.e. all players have options, apart from console players without premium platform access as they can only play in Solo) - unless players choose to limit their options by hoping that their opposition choose the same optional play-style.

It explains why some players consider this to be an issue. Whether it needs to be addressed, or not, remains a matter of opinion - and Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (and that they have sold PowerPlay as a feature for players in all game modes since it was added to the base game) - so that will probably influence their decision-making.

 

[Memau]

I doubt that Frontier share that opinion.



Which is based on the opinion that NPCs provide no opposition.



As PowerPlay has been quite consciously implemented in all three game modes by Frontier, players are free to choose whichever mode suits them, for their own reasons - they don't have to choose a mode that other players might prefer them to choose.



The playing field is level (i.e. all players have options, apart from console players without premium platform access as they can only play in Solo) - unless players choose to limit their options by hoping that their opposition choose the same optional play-style.

It explains why some players consider this to be an issue. Whether it needs to be addressed, or not, remains a matter of opinion - and Frontier are well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (and that they have sold PowerPlay as a feature for players in all game modes since it was added to the base game) - so that will probably influence their decision-making.

NPCs interdict you in a system, when you leave that system they disappear and are not a persistent threat. This is a key difference to players. The fact is they still affect all modes equally so for this discussion NPCs can still essentially be ignored. I can't say what Frontier's opinion is on their role in PowerPlay as I don't work for them, so I won't presume to know their thoughts there. PowerPlay NPCs were consciously implemented to attack all enemy pledges but have since been changed to only attack when enemy pledges hold merits (unless 3.0 changed it again) due to feedback from the community. Since it's implementation, PowerPlay and the communities surrounding it are probably vastly different to how Fdev envisioned when they introduced it. Does that make it a bad thing? Does that mean they Fdev don't need to look at various aspects of Powerplay that are highlighted as issues by the PowerPlay community?

If your objection to any change is that players in open, solo and private group should have access to PowerPlay, then I can agree and this would put me in favour of an open bonus rather than open only approach. You highlight the point exactly that people are choosing to impact other players in a competitive team-based minigame by choosing to remain hidden from them, but currently there is no consequence even though it has a huge impact on the game. With an open bonus, PowerPlay will still remain a feature accessible from all game modes as it was sold by Fdev, so again that is not an issue if things go down the open bonus route rather then an open only route. Is this what you were meaning?

An open bonus affecting the progress of a Power but not affecting personal merits would have a huge positive impact on those who actively participate in PowerPlay, with no impact on casual module shoppers or those just using the rank bonus for personal gain. I don't understand the reason to object to such a change simply because "it was implemented this way" when so many other aspects of the game have changed since then. PowerPlay is complex and that means it will take a lot of dedicated time from Fdev to make huge changes to how any part of it works. That might be one of the main reasons why these changes, aside from consolidation, haven't happened to date, but that does not mean that any short term fixes won't be welcomed by the community.

 

[Robert Maynard]

NPCs interdict you in a system, when you leave that system they disappear and are not a persistent threat. This is a key difference to players. The fact is they still affect all modes equally so for this discussion NPCs can still essentially be ignored. I can't say what Frontier's opinion is on their role in PowerPlay as I don't work for them, so I won't presume to know their thoughts there. PowerPlay NPCs were consciously implemented to attack all enemy pledges but have since been changed to only attack when enemy pledges hold merits (unless 3.0 changed it again) due to feedback from the community. Since it's implementation, PowerPlay and the communities surrounding it are probably vastly different to how Fdev envisioned when they introduced it. Does that make it a bad thing? Does that mean they Fdev don't need to look at various aspects of Powerplay that are highlighted as issues by the PowerPlay community?

I don't work for them either. NPCs cannot be disregarded - as they are actually a fundamental part of the solution, in my opinion. That NPCs only attack when players are holding merits rather suggests that's how Frontier envisage PowerPlay being played.

The type of changes usually proposed (by those who prefer direct PvP, or at least tolerate it) involve discriminating against players in Solo and Private Groups simply for choosing to play in those modes.

Frontier have stated (and reiterated) their stance that all game modes are equal and valid choices in their opinion (and that they are aware that not all players agree).

If your objection to any change is that players in open, solo and private group should have access to PowerPlay, then I can agree and this would put me in favour of an open bonus rather than open only approach. You highlight the point exactly that people are choosing to impact other players in a competitive team-based minigame by choosing to remain hidden from them, but currently there is no consequence even though it has a huge impact on the game. With an open bonus, PowerPlay will still remain a feature accessible from all game modes as it was sold by Fdev, so again that is not an issue if things go down the open bonus route rather then an open only route. Is this what you were meaning?

Frontier chose, long ago, to implement PowerPlay for all players - of that there is no doubt.

The "choosing to remain hidden" part is straight out of the playbook of some of those who prefer direct PvP and would prefer that everyone else had to make themselves available for direct opposition. That it is in conflict with Frontier's very clear design, i.e. players choose when they make themselves available for direct opposition (if ever) is also obvious.

A simple Open bonus, i.e. given to any merits delivered in Open, would be poorly targeted (as there's no guarantee that any credible hazard was encountered) especially as direct PvP is an optional play-style in this game.

If the bonus were targeted and applied only to those players who actually encountered a credible hazard (and that the encounter was not staged for fifth-column collusion) then, personally, I'd have very little objection to it.

An open bonus affecting the progress of a Power but not affecting personal merits would have a huge positive impact on those who actively participate in PowerPlay, with no impact on casual module shoppers or those just using the rank bonus for personal gain. I don't understand the reason to object to such a change simply because "it was implemented this way" when so many other aspects of the game have changed since then. PowerPlay is complex and that means it will take a lot of dedicated time from Fdev to make huge changes to how any part of it works. That might be one of the main reasons why these changes, aside from consolidation, haven't happened to date, but that does not mean that any short term fixes won't be welcomed by the community.

What proportion of players that engage in PowerPlay do so in Open? To suggest that an Open bonus would benefit "those who actively participate in PowerPlay" disregards those in Solo and Private Groups. It might better have been written "those who actively participate in PowerPlay in Open".

The objection relating to "it was implemented this way" is based on the fact that changes to the status quo will disadvantage players in Solo and Private Groups (in relation to PowerPlay) to the advantage of players who play in Open - when Frontier are on record as considering that all game modes are equal and valid choices.

Sandro briefly mused on the Forums regarding an Open play bonus (March'16), for PowerPlay only (i.e. not the BGS, Factions, etc.), and confirmed in December'16 that there were no plans to do so. His musings caused rather a stir on the forums - with some Open Only advocates assuming that it meant that everything was up for grabs (i.e. that some or all aspects of the game would be given a bonus for Open) - and seemed rather at odds with other Devs statements regarding the modes.

We'll see what, if anything, happens in this regard in due course.

 

[Jockey79]

....
An open bonus affecting the progress of a Power but not affecting personal merits would have a huge positive impact on those who actively participate in PowerPlay,....

And would encourage people to openly cheat the system to gain the bonus and still not have to play with other people.
As it is fully possible to play open mode (and get the benefit) while still choosing not to interact / see anyone else.

Which is why any bonus locked to open is a bad idea, as it solves nothing and is a waste of Dev time.

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

A simple Open bonus, i.e. given to any merits delivered in Open, would be poorly targeted (as there's no guarantee that any credible hazard was encountered) especially as direct PvP is an optional play-style in this game.

If the bonus were targeted and applied only to those players who actually encountered a credible hazard (and that the encounter was not staged for fifth-column collusion) then, personally, I'd have very little objection to it.

That, I think, is the only way to move forward with this debate. The big issue to address is how to reward CMDRs who survive hostile encounters, how to monitor for collusion, and whether some collusion has a purpose. Personal rewards for surviving hostile encounters make sense, that way abuse and exploitation of the mechanic doesn't give the entire Power a boost, but simply the CMDR.

I remember when FDev killed off collusion piracy, and the fact that they didn't stop preparation sabotage at the same time negated the benefits that Consolidation brought against combating preparation sabotage by a fifth column.

While improvements were made, we are still saddled with the enduring issue of preparation sabotage being the most efficient way to destroy a Power.