Pull Your Fingers Out - Incrementally Improving PowerPlay

[Arsen Cross]

Greetings CMDRs,

We in the Powerplay community want to try again to push for change. We are fed up with how Frontier have been ignoring us and punishing us for playing Powerplay - yes, that is how the majority of us feel - that we are being punished for trying to play what was supposed to be one of the most dynamic gameplay elements of Elite Dangerous. It is no longer acceptable to be ignored and neglected while we watch Frontier prioritize other things. It seems sometimes that they go out of their way to “fix” things that are not broken but only makes the game less grindy, while they totally ignore the simplest Powerplay requests and fixes - for example fixing some text in game! That is the extent to how much they do not listen to us. Will Frontier keep punishing the Powerplayers and treating us as second-class customers or will we start seeing some changes?

We are about to start a series of proposals to improve PowerPlay in various ways. These will be posted every Thursday after tick in the “Suggestions” section of this forum. The goal of these is to make PowerPlay a more interesting, dynamic, and rewarding experience, without needing to scrap the whole thing and rebuild from the ground up - evolution rather than revolution. Each proposal is intended to be relatively straightforward to implement (though of course we have no special insight into the specific of the Elite codebase), and most of them (except where mentioned) stand alone and do not need a lot of other changes to make them work.

Please limit discussions to the specific topic at hand - pros, cons, tweaks, etc. If you have alternative proposals, by all means make a separate topic! Although the authors are Winters/FLC commanders, these proposals have been made and discussed by pilots from many Powers.

UPDATE:
Every now and then we bring one change suggestion to PowerPlay so we can focus on discussing it:
First suggestion: Turmoil ordering of systems is decided by difference between fort and UM levels, ignoring 100% cap
Second Suggestion: Reduce ballot-stuffing by tying consolidation votes to activity
Third Suggestion: Overhead scales with number of (control+exploited+contested) systems, rather than number of control systems
Forth Suggestion: Make weaponised systems easier to undermine

Great collection of ideas. Changes like this would make me interested in returning to power play. Doubly so if we can have combat fortification for all powers. The scout/patrol immersion archetype is ruined by this activity not being rewarded.

I’ll also take an updated fortification allotment Interface, I want to fill my entire cargo bay in one transaction please. And let our time based allotments accrue each cycle, resetting built up allotments on the weekly tick.

I’d for sure get back into powerplay.

 

[CMDR Foursyth]

Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Remove commander from instance as soon as landed

This is part of a series of proposals to improve PowerPlay in various ways. The goal is to make PowerPlay a more interesting, dynamic, and rewarding experience, without needing to scrap the whole thing and rebuild from the ground up - evolution rather than revolution. Each proposal is intended...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Goof141]

Personally I think in order to get FDev's attention, we need a massive effort to do something drastic that would be impossible to ignore.

I propose using a specified/multiple powerplay faction(s) to consume/engulf another lesser faction down to (if possible) the headquarters system.

Preferably the faction that we would wipe from the star map would be one with a less-useful module. Example: Zermina Torval and the Mining Lance.

It would take some time and alot of coordination but it would be impossible for Fdev to ignore.

 

[Bottom Hat]

I'll follow your lead mate...

 

[Danieros]

Personally I think in order to get FDev's attention, we need a massive effort to do something drastic that would be impossible to ignore.

I propose using a specified/multiple powerplay faction(s) to consume/engulf another lesser faction down to (if possible) the headquarters system.

Preferably the faction that we would wipe from the star map would be one with a less-useful module. Example: Zermina Torval and the Mining Lance.

It would take some time and alot of coordination but it would be impossible for Fdev to ignore.

This is already happening though it is nothing more than a power leadership exploiting a bug for its own benefit rather than a fair call for Frontier attention, see this. One month ago a bug was confirmed which is causing revolts to not return CC income from contested systems of another power, and one power leadership is very openly abusing that to destroy Torval, both by making it turmoil/revolt due to the missing CC and by attempting to further weaponize against them to cause even more negative CC.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

This is already happening though it is nothing more than a power leadership exploiting a bug for its own benefit rather than a fair call for Frontier attention, see this. One month ago a bug was confirmed which is causing revolts to not return CC income from contested systems of another power, and one power leadership is very openly abusing that to destroy Torval, both by making it turmoil/revolt due to the missing CC and by attempting to further weaponize against them to cause even more negative CC.

This thread is meant to help gather ideas to improve Powerplay, please leave your propaganda out of it. I think the conversation happening in Aisling and Winters' subreddits is more than enough, no need to bring your trash here.

 

[Bottom Hat]

Yeah, don't confess to your exploits!


Said whilst stirring a big pot of poop with a stick

 

[Danieros]

This thread is meant to help gather ideas to improve Powerplay, please leave your propaganda out of it. I think the conversation happening in Aisling and Winters' subreddits is more than enough, no need to bring your trash here.

Propaganda? I've linked a confirmed bug report.

I have zero interest in political squabble or propaganda between leaderships, only the objective pointing of current bugs being exploited as it hurts the integrity of powerplay until enough attention is drawn to get them fixed to prevent further damage, which does in fact answer the post I quoted.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

You're free to talk about your point of view on this issue. There's already another post in this forum about it. There's also this and this. Please, don't hijack this thread.

 

[Danieros]

You're free to talk about your point of view on this issue. There's already another post in this forum about it. There's also this and this. Please, don't hijack this thread.

I fail to see how bringing attention for a PP bug fix doesn't fit a thread about improving PP.

 

[Bottom Hat]

At least he's not discussing the main thing I'm concerned about - the pedestrianisation of Norwich City centre.

That issue needs debating. On a mass-ive scale.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I've chipped in over the years with my thoughts on PP, some mirror Rubbernuke's own, some differ (strongly).

I've never been into the intracies of it much, so have nothing to offer on that side except to say a never ending grind with no possible win/lose condition is a good way to kill a feature.

I question why the game needs two territorial gameplay elements. I feel that if FD had instead chosen to extend the BGS with powerplay, instead of making it a highly illogical parallel territorial game it might have resulted in something more interesting, that players could feel more involved in. Federal Powers owning Imperial systems makes no sense to me at all.

That aside, the only thing in relation to these proposals is that should it be an open only activity, then its presence and effect on PG/solo should be removed. No Li Yong discount in PG/solo, no opening/closing of Black Markets based on PP events, no PP bonuses should apply to PP players playing in PG/solo (so no gaining ranks with with Li Yong and then gaining a bonus to exploration while in PG/solo), and most of all, get rid of all powerplay ship spawns in PG/solo, because its annoying as hell trying to bounty hunt when half of all spawns are powerplay ships that do nothing except take up spawn slots.

If PP is open only, it should not exist for players in PG/solo in any shape or form.

 

[Goof141]

Regardless of bugs or exploits of a certain faction. It's clear that the consensus of players in regards to powerplay is that something needs to change.

My suggestion is merely an event too large to go unnoticed. Torval is simply a necessary casualty.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I've chipped in over the years with my thoughts on PP, some mirror Rubbernuke's own, some differ (strongly).

I've never been into the intracies of it much, so have nothing to offer on that side except to say a never ending grind with no possible win/lose condition is a good way to kill a feature.

I question why the game needs two territorial gameplay elements. I feel that if FD had instead chosen to extend the BGS with powerplay, instead of making it a highly illogical parallel territorial game it might have resulted in something more interesting, that players could feel more involved in. Federal Powers owning Imperial systems makes no sense to me at all.

That aside, the only thing in relation to these proposals is that should it be an open only activity, then its presence and effect on PG/solo should be removed. No Li Yong discount in PG/solo, no opening/closing of Black Markets based on PP events, no PP bonuses should apply to PP players playing in PG/solo (so no gaining ranks with with Li Yong and then gaining a bonus to exploration while in PG/solo), and most of all, get rid of all powerplay ship spawns in PG/solo, because its annoying as hell trying to bounty hunt when half of all spawns are powerplay ships that do nothing except take up spawn slots.

If PP is open only, it should not exist for players in PG/solo in any shape or form.

Personally PP should be the mirror opposite of the BGS- the BGS is a multi mode, aggregate tick based activity. Powerplay (which is half way there now anyway and just needs a final push) is more real time conflict. Sandros proposal is probably the best of both worlds in that; BGS footprint is minimal, and a clear differentiation between features.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Personally PP should be the mirror opposite of the BGS- the BGS is a multi mode, aggregate tick based activity. Powerplay (which is half way there now anyway and just needs a final push) is more real time conflict. Sandros proposal is probably the best of both worlds in that; BGS footprint is minimal, and a clear differentiation between features.

Can FD's servers handle real time changes?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Can FD's servers handle real time changes?

By real time, I mean that unlike the aggregated BGS each action in Powerplay (i.e. each kill, cargo unit etc) can be tracked in real time. If I kill a rival ship, I instantly go onto a Powerplay bounty board, I can be seen doing this with an explicit pledge, and the second I cash those merits in the UI registers that action. Its why an Open BGS would never work, but an Open Powerplay would- cause and effect are easy to determine in Powerplay- simple pledges, explicit territories, one of two actions. It does all this now, and like I said all it needs really is for a little nudge.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

By real time, I mean that unlike the aggregated BGS each action in Powerplay (i.e. each kill, cargo unit etc) can be tracked in real time. If I kill a rival ship, I instantly go onto a Powerplay bounty board, I can be seen doing this with an explicit pledge, and the second I cash those merits in the UI registers that action. Its why an Open BGS would never work, but an Open Powerplay would- cause and effect are easy to determine in Powerplay- simple pledges, explicit territories, one of two actions. It does all this now, and like I said all it needs really is for a little nudge.

Hmm... well, it might work.

 

[Amanojaku]

Yes please. We've been asking for this for years.

AT LEAST TWEEK SOME NUMBERS FDEV!

 

[WhoCares]

...
That aside, the only thing in relation to these proposals is that should it be an open only activity, then its presence and effect on PG/solo should be removed. No Li Yong discount in PG/solo, no opening/closing of Black Markets based on PP events, no PP bonuses should apply to PP players playing in PG/solo (so no gaining ranks with with Li Yong and then gaining a bonus to exploration while in PG/solo), and most of all, get rid of all powerplay ship spawns in PG/solo, because its annoying as hell trying to bounty hunt when half of all spawns are powerplay ships that do nothing except take up spawn slots.

If PP is open only, it should not exist for players in PG/solo in any shape or form.

So you want to force someone with let's say 5 billion worth of exploration data into open to unlock the LYR bonus? I think in that case you can just as well remove the bonus.
Anything close to that value, that supporters of other powers could lose because of that? I have my doubts. There is no comparable relation between risk vs. gain.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So you want to force someone with let's say 5 billion worth of exploration data into open to unlock the LYR bonus? I think in that case you can just as well remove the bonus.
Anything close to that value, that supporters of other powers could lose because of that? I have my doubts. There is no comparable relation between risk vs. gain.

LYR exploration bonus at R5 makes no sense anyway, at least how its currently used. You need to be R5 to gain the bonus which puts you in harms way, and for a decent return you need to be out exploring for months. I'd say bump it down to something like R3, because big one off transactions of billions take a while to build up anyway so it can't be gamed, and brings casual exploration data in line with bounty hunting bonuses (so they become roughly analogous of each other).

I would say though that no other power has a bonus that allows them to double a reward to the level you can with LYR though- I've seen people make 6 billion more in comparison to a meager x2 bounty bonus.