Make Open Play matter - Power Play and BGS should be influenced only in open

[Robert Maynard]

A counter question to you- what is the BGS for, and what is PP for, as of today? What roles do they fill?

The BGS provides a persistent varying backdrop to every player's gameplay - that they can also choose to affect.

Powerplay offers something somewhat similar - with fewer "teams" and perks for participation.

ED is eventually a game of hamster wheels- after a while it becomes a job to do the BGS, Powerplay, anything that requires conflict with others you never see, with FD seemingly incapable of making content that will make that any less dull after a while. The only way that Powerplay could be unlocked without a major overhaul is by player interactions, which would give MC, FC, wings and squadrons some sort of purpose other than being a folder for name lists. As I've written extensively before, only players make emergent content and Powerplay with its simplistic tasks would allow this to happen.

IMO at least, FD need to bite the bullet and at least push Powerplay into the Open only bracket, just as CQC is, and then adjust block rules and see how it goes. It can't be any worse than the decay we have now with no updates on the horizon.

E: D is a game where everyone engages in PvE (as it is pretty much unavoidable) and where playing among other players (and therefore PvP) is an optional extra.

Whether Frontier want to place an existing game feature (which forms part of the base game that every player bought) behind a PvP-gate, or not, is ultimately up to them. If they did so then it would no longer be accessible by console players without premium platform access - and would probably be ignored by players who don't enjoy PvP (which might further reduce the number of participants).

PvP is not the only form of emergent content in this game - as the Fuel Rats, Rock Rats, etc. have amply demonstrated.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The BGS provides a persistent varying backdrop to every player's gameplay - that they can also choose to affect.

Powerplay offers something somewhat similar - with fewer "teams" and perks for participation.

But in the end, it leads to the same thing. Support a faction, expand it, retreat it, fight for it. The perks for Powerplay don't outweigh the varied BGS tasks (i.e. its the whole game)- powerplay has 4 tasks that lead to uneven rewards and opaque outcomes. PP is poorer for that in light of a revised BGS with hugely improved faction manipulation. In short PP has no purpose as it is now, so either its pushed into Open only or pushed into the bin.

E: D is a game where everyone engages in PvE (as it is pretty much unavoidable) and where playing among other players (and therefore PvP) is an optional extra.

PvE in a PP context is the way you harvest merits from NPCs- NPCs that don't fight back in any real way outside combat expansions. So it then becomes a linear open ended massacre mission or a massive wing cargo mission. The only way to compete is to do it more than someone else, which in reality is the definition of grind. At least with BGS factions you can mine, do missions, trade, explore (data), BH in a freeform way.

Whether Frontier want to place an existing game feature (which forms part of the base game that every player bought) behind a PvP-gate, or not, is ultimately up to them. If they did so then it would no longer be accessible by console players without premium platform access - and would probably be ignored by players who don't enjoy PvP (which might further reduce the number of participants).

As I said above, PP is at a point where it needs to choose its future role as it no longer has one. It needs to find an audience outside of the die hards that keep it alive.

PvP is not the only form of emergent content in this game - as the Fuel Rats, Rock Rats, etc. have amply demonstrated.

True, but ED is insanely bad at serving combat players using using its own features that are designed for it. Powerplay should be the place where you go toe to toe with someone else using your own ships and experiences drawn from the rest of the game.

 

[Jmanis]

BGS factions only impacted by actions in Open. Still allow players to gain rep for actions in Solo/PG (Maybe bonus for doing in open)

Nope. BGS exists to create a living, breathing and dynamic gameplay environment, and is about players indirectly interacting through it. Therefore all modes and platforms should influence it. FD has repeatedly stated (words to this effect) in every livestream they've held about the BGS.

That Powerplay is affected by (aspects of) the BGS is, if anything, a fault with Powerplay's implementation, not the BGS.

tl;dr Playing the BGS is not about pewpewing other players.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

This would make playing in open meaningful. Players should not be able to "hide" from opponents of their actions in Power Play or BGS.

For those who wish to play in PG or Solo, they're still able to get everything they can get that influences only them (merits, powerplay modules, faction rep).

For Powerplay, this would be doable if Frontier wanted to - the Powerplay contents are small and disconnected from the rest of the game. Frontier's suggested implementation - no ETAs, no guarantees - just had the Powerplay merits and cargo vanish if you went into PG/Solo, which was practical because they only had Powerplay uses. Not necessarily completely practical, of course, and a few exploits here and there - but it would have been sufficient to make Powerplayers think they were in an Open-only world for a few months.
(You couldn't even get merits in PG under their proposal) I suspect that the residual exploits, once they thought about it, were sufficiently large that they realised of course a group of players who do 5C and suchlike to get a win nowadays would push them to the limit for PP as well.

For BGS, this is simply not possible. Some absolutely trivial exploits - a few of many - from a basic "actions in Open are the only effect" rule:
1) Gain money in PG. Sit in station and hand in donation missions in Open.
2) Buy cargo in Open. Fly between stations in Solo. Sell cargo in Open.
3) Explore in PG. Sell data once docked in Open.

If you insist on Frontier tracking the mode provenance of every single BGS-affecting thing, and zeroing it if it ever goes into PG/Solo, then this is clearly never going to happen, and exploits are still possible! A couple of examples:
1) If you're trying to induce a negative state on a faction (or just fighting it in a war) you risk slipping to Hostile which can make it tricky to do anything to them. Any action you take to recover rep will also boost their influence and states ... or you could switch to Solo for consequence-free rep increases to let you keep hammering their inf and states with ease.
2) If you're in PG/Solo your sales and purchases wouldn't affect the market stock levels and prices (it's part of the BGS, just like absolutely everything else), so you could gain a big advantage in Community Goals by not doing them in Open, since you and all your PG/Solo friends wouldn't be reducing the stock. Or you could blow up a core asteroid, then just relog to get it back, because its destruction couldn't be allowed to persist without affecting Open players.

Other issues:
1) Explorers would very strongly object to only being able to take high-res screenshots in PG/Solo, but only being able to get first discoveries in Open.
2) The BGS in a lot of systems would get a lot more static. Background activity generally strongly benefits the controlling faction, so you'd discover that your more prestigious systems suddenly got a lot easier to attack because you'd no longer have as much support from passing traffic.

 

[Jockey79]

True, but ED is insanely bad at serving combat players using using its own features that are designed for it. Powerplay should be the place where you go toe to toe with someone else using your own ships and experiences drawn from the rest of the game.

So a PP based version of CQC then. Sounds good to me, combine the 2 optional features into one optional feature.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So a PP based version of CQC then. Sounds good to me, combine the 2 optional features into one optional feature.

Well, you have CQC for balanced PvP with fixed loadouts in pre-defined places, and Powerplay which would then be massive team based conflict set in the inhabited bubble. One mini, one macro.

 

[Rob At Work]

Whoop, whoop, the "lets all play in open only" players are back from their Summer vacation, now we are gonna get some fun exchanges on this forum

 

[Old Duck]

Finally, somebody has a new idea that hasn't been expressed and debated endlessly for years!

Oh, wait...

 

[Robert Maynard]

But in the end, it leads to the same thing. Support a faction, expand it, retreat it, fight for it. The perks for Powerplay don't outweigh the varied BGS tasks (i.e. its the whole game)- powerplay has 4 tasks that lead to uneven rewards and opaque outcomes. PP is poorer for that in light of a revised BGS with hugely improved faction manipulation. In short PP has no purpose as it is now, so either its pushed into Open only or pushed into the bin.

What else is expected from a basically PvE activity?

.... and given the propensity for players to collude whenever possible, directly rewarding PvP is unlikely to feature.

PvE in a PP context is the way you harvest merits from NPCs- NPCs that don't fight back in any real way outside combat expansions. So it then becomes a linear open ended massacre mission or a massive wing cargo mission. The only way to compete is to do it more than someone else, which in reality is the definition of grind. At least with BGS factions you can mine, do missions, trade, explore (data), BH in a freeform way.

The challenge posed by NPCs, in a base game feature, necessarily has to be able to be dealt with by un-engineered ships - and less than half of base game copies have a corresponding sale of Horizons.

As I said above, PP is at a point where it needs to choose its future role as it no longer has one. It needs to find an audience outside of the die hards that keep it alive.

Whether, or not, Frontier need to do anything with regard to Powerplay remains up to them.

True, but ED is insanely bad at serving combat players using using its own features that are designed for it. Powerplay should be the place where you go toe to toe with someone else using your own ships and experiences drawn from the rest of the game.

Combat players or PvP players?

The latter didn't buy a game that requires their play-style.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What else is expected from a basically PvE activity?

Because both are based on PvE activities, but one has varied tasks that encompass the whole game, while the other has two (haul one commodity and shoot the enemy). The former can exist like that while the latter starves as time and development goes on.

.... and given the propensity for players to collude whenever possible, directly rewarding PvP is unlikely to feature

In PP the greatest way to collude currently is in PG with AFK turretboats, since collusion piracy was ended a long time ago.

The challenge posed by NPCs, in a base game feature, necessarily has to be able to be dealt with by un-engineered ships - and less than half of base game copies have a corresponding sale of Horizons.

Faction support can draw in a whole spectrum of opponents that use engineering- why not Powerplay? Why is it no Power uses its own modules? The new BGS has ships that use fresh kit and thats the base game as well.

Whether, or not, Frontier need to do anything with regard to Powerplay remains up to them.

True. Its just getting to a point now (5 years of no development) where a choice has to be made before Powerplay ossifies completely.

Combat players or PvP players?

The latter didn't buy a game that requires their play-style.

Well, there is a whole range of weapons that makes more sense in PvP. Powerplay tasks make more sense in a PvP context. Its a natural conclusion joining the two together.

 

[Iskariot]

1. Blocking should just block chat and not impact instancing
2. Power Play numbers for the powers only impacted by actions in Open. Still allow merits to be earned in Solo/PG that influence the players rank and nothing else (Maybe bonus for doing in open)
3. BGS factions only impacted by actions in Open. Still allow players to gain rep for actions in Solo/PG (Maybe bonus for doing in open)

This would make playing in open meaningful. Players should not be able to "hide" from opponents of their actions in Power Play or BGS.

For those who wish to play in PG or Solo, they're still able to get everything they can get that influences only them (merits, powerplay modules, faction rep).

I think your concerns are justified from the standpoint of someone interested in interacting with other players. But...

I'd pay the price of a full AAA game for a solo version of Elite Dangerous with a version of Powerplay that is much more designed for solo roleplaying, and world building.
Powerplay could add so much depth and color to the Elite universe for every player. Currently it is a shallow semi-multiplayer version of what it could be. PP could add a layer of storytelling, missions, etc. and could aid in the creation of a universe that feels alive. It could be integrated with trade, piracy gameplay (letter's of mark), bountyhunting (bounty hunt licences) etc. etc.

FDev's view of Powerplay, and what it could be, is far too limited.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because both are based on PvE activities, but one has varied tasks that encompass the whole game, while the other has two (haul one commodity and shoot the enemy). The former can exist like that while the latter starves as time and development goes on.

"Both are based on PvE activities" - in a game where PvP is entirely optional.

In PP the greatest way to collude currently is in PG with AFK turretboats, since collusion piracy was ended a long time ago.

That's not collusion between "opposing" players.

Faction support can draw in a whole spectrum of opponents that use engineering- why not Powerplay? Why is it no Power uses its own modules? The new BGS has ships that use fresh kit and thats the base game as well.

.... because Powerplay is a base game feature, as stated.

True. Its just getting to a point now (5 years of no development) where a choice has to be made before Powerplay ossifies completely.

Wishing for a swift decision may not end up with a decision that is palatable.

Well, there is a whole range of weapons that makes more sense in PvP. Powerplay tasks make more sense in a PvP context. Its a natural conclusion joining the two together.

Weapons which work fine in PvE. Some weapons which facilitate PvP between players who choose to engage in it don't change the nature of the game.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

The only thing I would agree with would be Powerplay being Open Only (Surprise, Surprise) and you cannot block a fellow PP player.Move the PP equipment to behind the Tech brokers and remove the PP modifications to the BGS, so the single players can still get the PP equipment and then let emergent gameplay deal with the rest.

Leave the BSG alone. If you want a consensual PVP playground, then push for open only Powerplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

"Both are based on PvE activities" - in a game where PvP is entirely optional.

Currently yes. PvP would be most useful when everyone is mostly together so you can prevent them carrying out (or slowing them) doing things.

That's not collusion between "opposing" players.

Its collusion though. Pure PvP is not collusion, because its an act that affects another Power through denial of activity.

.... because Powerplay is a base game feature, as stated.

But factions are base game? CZs base game? Pirate lords base game? Wing assassin missions base game? Base game enemies have: enzyme missiles, Prismatic shields, Imperial Hammers, Packhounds, engineering at Deadly and above, phasing as examples.

Wishing for a swift decision may not end up with a decision that is palatable.

Whatever they decide they need to actually make a choice so people can move on or wait.

Weapons which work fine in PvE. Some weapons which facilitate PvP between players who choose to engage in it don't change the nature of the game.

Containment missiles, torpedoes, reverb mines, TLB, dispersal, phased etc are all PvP slanted. Didn't one of the devs say that torpedoes have no real relevance in PvE? Powerplay has a singular non changing cargo you haul, with another you deliver with an outwardly visible pledge. Join it together and it leans towards player v player.

 

[Jockey79]

If you want a consensual PVP playground, then push for open only Powerplay.

You have CQC for that.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You have CQC for that.

CQC and Open Powerplay would support micro and macro PvP- small scale balanced arena shooting in CQC and large scale team v team conflict using your own ships (Open Powerplay)- the arena being the bubbles you fight over.

 

[Jockey79]

CQC and Open Powerplay would support micro and macro PvP- small scale balanced arena shooting in CQC and large scale team v team conflict using your own ships (Open Powerplay)- the arena being the bubbles you fight over.

I think you misunderstood what I said before, by combining CQC with PP you'd have an optional feature not connected at all to Open mode, Group Mode or Solo Mode (just as CQC isn't)

If you want PP restricted to who can play it, then it needs to be like CQC, not connected at all to everyone else.
So either it's in all modes or it becomes its own mode away from everyone.

ED isn't a PvP game, it is a game with optional PvP - so if you want a feature locking for PvP, then it should not be connected to the main game in any way.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Currently yes. PvP would be most useful when everyone is mostly together so you can prevent them carrying out (or slowing them) doing things.

.... on three platforms, 24/365, reliant on players being able to be instanced with due to P2P / standard router settings.

Its collusion though. Pure PvP is not collusion, because its an act that affects another Power through denial of activity.

Who is colluding from the opposing side in a turret boat scenario?

I would agree that PvP to deny is not collusion - however if PvP encounters were ever to be specifically rewarded then it would end up offering opportunities for collusion.

But factions are base game? CZs base game? Pirate lords base game? Wing assassin missions base game? Base game enemies have: enzyme missiles, Prismatic shields, Imperial Hammers, Packhounds, engineering at Deadly and above, phasing as examples.

Factions are base game, yes - introduced in the first year, as Powerplay was.

Fair point regarding some NPCs having some Powerplay weapons - not across the board though.

Whatever they decide they need to actually make a choice so people can move on or wait.

Again the perceived need to decide is just that - a perception.

Containment missiles, torpedoes, reverb mines, TLB, dispersal, phased etc are all PvP slanted. Didn't one of the devs say that torpedoes have no real relevance in PvE? Powerplay has a singular non changing cargo you haul, with another you deliver with an outwardly visible pledge. Join it together and it leans towards player v player.

While it may lean towards PvP, in the opinion of some, that does not mean that it requires PvP (nor requires to be changed to require PvP).

We'll see, in time, what Frontier decide to do.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think you misunderstood what I said before, by combining CQC with PP you'd have an optional feature not connected at all to Open mode, Group Mode or Solo Mode (just as CQC isn't)

If you want PP restricted to who can play it, then it needs to be like CQC, not connected at all to everyone else.
So either it's in all modes or it becomes its own mode away from everyone.

ED isn't a PvP game, it is a game with optional PvP - so if you want a feature locking for PvP, then it should not be connected to the main game in any way.

Indeed ED is not PvP, its an awkward blend that tries to satisfy everyone at once and in certain features fails badly. Powerplay as Sandro suggested would be divorced from most of the game as you wished, modules moved and BGS footprint minimised.

 

[RolloTreadway]

Better suggestion:

Make the search function matter - suggestions should only be permitted if they've previously been posted fewer than fifty times.