The fundamental problem with making Powerplay Open-Only.

[DemiserofD]

I don’t see where you get the idea that a person who is not good at PVP can never be good at PVP. Personally I am kind of shocked you can complete online universe goals in single player mode. That’s totally wrong. If that’s what power play is? Not sure as I’m a n00b.

Most games have systems that put people of equivalent skill against each other. Take First Person Shooters, for example; put XQC against 90% of the population and he'd absolutely obliterate them. And 90% of the population can never overcome that gap in skill. If they could, they'd be the ones making millions streaming games. This is a law of nature, called the Pareto Princople.

Except Open is, by nature, Open. Meaning that 90% of the time would be dominated by 10% of 10% of players.

That's why Matchmaking systems exist in other games.

The other alternative is to remove skill from the equation. EVE, for example, is much more about strategy and tactics than your ability to nail your target with PA shots at 3000m.

But Elite has neither of these mitigating factors.

 

[DemiserofD]

And how does that relate to UM? How can I outhaul you there when you can get to 100% and thats it?

It doesn't, but as I've said, that's a problem with the design of powerplay, not the fact it can be played in solo or open. Even with OOPP, the fortifying players would have equal player numbers and the home field advantage, so nothing would change in terms of results.

If you want a solution to this problem fine, that's great. Just make that solution something that actually solves the problem.

 

[Jacobis9000]

Most games have systems that put people of equivalent skill against each other. Take First Person Shooters, for example; put XQC against 90% of the population and he'd absolutely obliterate them. And 90% of the population can never overcome that gap in skill. If they could, they'd be the ones making millions streaming games. This is a law of nature, called the Pareto Princople.

Except Open is, by nature, Open. Meaning that 90% of the time would be dominated by 10% of 10% of players.

That's why Matchmaking systems exist in other games.

The other alternative is to remove skill from the equation. EVE, for example, is much more about strategy and tactics than your ability to nail your target with PA shots at 3000m.

But Elite has neither of these mitigating factors.

Ah ok fair point, but what Elite does have is what we have IRL. I.e. you’re not always going to be attacked or attacked by the best fighters. If it were the case that in every single fight you encounter you are fighting a top 10% fighter, then you will lose 90% of the time. But that’s not a given.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It doesn't, but as I've said, that's a problem with the design of powerplay, not the fact it can be played in solo or open. Even with OOPP, the fortifying players would have equal player numbers and the home field advantage, so nothing would change in terms of results.

How do you know they are even numbers of fortifiers to attackers? This is where active recon allows powers to rush into areas either to attack, defend or just avoid them to do what they need to do. There is no field advantage, because every fortifier is coming to one point, from a system that could be subject to uncapped UM (forcing that defending power to go back to these areas until they either lose, or drive them off). Uncapped UM defence would require either a combination of direct combat and hauling, divert more haulers leaving other places vulnerable, or drive them off directly. And even then, if this is done late in a cycle its going to be hard to stop. Hence, there is a bias towards offensive action. This bias ensures no power can hide behind impenetrable defenses, more powers go into turmoil more often, and that systems are always freed up to fight over.

If you want a solution to this problem fine, that's great. Just make that solution something that actually solves the problem.

Well, I'm explaining my thinking, while you hide behind matchmaking- which is crazy since each power has its combat pilots, and that nearly everyone knows how to shoot.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Most games have systems that put people of equivalent skill against each other. Take First Person Shooters, for example; put XQC against 90% of the population and he'd absolutely obliterate them. And 90% of the population can never overcome that gap in skill. If they could, they'd be the ones making millions streaming games. This is a law of nature, called the Pareto Princople.

Except Open is, by nature, Open. Meaning that 90% of the time would be dominated by 10% of 10% of players.

That's why Matchmaking systems exist in other games.

The other alternative is to remove skill from the equation. EVE, for example, is much more about strategy and tactics than your ability to nail your target with PA shots at 3000m.

But Elite has neither of these mitigating factors.

And powerplay is not CQC- its not explicit 1:1 fighting, its who you come across at the time. Its not like Rinzler is stalking you, because he / she can't unless you are friends and Powerplay territories are quite big. Plus this is where intel on a rivals behavior and habits come in, and knowing when / if a system is free of attackers.

This is miles more involving than what we have now. You don't need to do recon, you don't need to build sensibly. Its all routine, week in, week out which is not exactly exciting.

 

[DemiserofD]

Ah ok fair point, but what Elite does have is what we have IRL. I.e. you’re not always going to be attacked or attacked by the best fighters. If it were the case that in every single fight you encounter you are fighting a top 10% fighter, then you will lose 90% of the time. But that’s not a given.

True, but, well, take CQC as an example. Join CQC and the people you'll encounter are the people who REALLY like CQC, and have spent all their time doing it, and have gotten really good at it. Hence, you'll get destroyed by them constantly unless you're willing to put in the same effort, which most people aren't.

Basically, the most skilled players are also the players who invest the most time, which means they're also the players you're most likely to encounter.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Basically, the most skilled players are also the players who invest the most time, which means they're also the players you're most likely to encounter.

Except its fully within your power to run away, learn to fight back, or go to another system, or ask for help- the team aspect. This is on top of (through learning what powers favour) diverting or distracting these 'top players'.

 

[DemiserofD]

How do you know they are even numbers of fortifiers to attackers? This is where active recon allows powers to rush into areas either to attack, defend or just avoid them to do what they need to do. There is no field advantage, because every fortifier is coming to one point, from a system that could be subject to uncapped UM (forcing that defending power to go back to these areas until they either lose, or drive them off). Uncapped UM defence would require either a combination of direct combat and hauling, divert more haulers leaving other places vulnerable, or drive them off directly. And even then, if this is done late in a cycle its going to be hard to stop. Hence, there is a bias towards offensive action. This bias ensures no power can hide behind impenetrable defenses, more powers go into turmoil more often, and that systems are always freed up to fight over.



Well, I'm explaining my thinking, while you hide behind matchmaking- which is crazy since each power has its combat pilots, and that nearly everyone knows how to shoot.

'Hiding' behind matchmaking? I'm explaining why matchmaking exists, and why the lack of matchmaking in Elite would unfairly bias it towards the highest echelons of players, that's just common sense.

Anyways, none of what you've just said matters, if the problems as you've laid them out are true.

In order to stop the defenders from fortifying, they must attack the systems being fortified. This means the defending players will also be there, balancing out the offense, unless they're outnumbered, in which case they'd have lost anyway, as well, OOPP or not.

The only result is making combat players the most important aspect, as the haulers will be complete ineffective without the combat players to defend them.

IE, making haulers second-class citizens.

 

[DemiserofD]

And powerplay is not CQC- its not explicit 1:1 fighting, its who you come across at the time. Its not like Rinzler is stalking you, because he / she can't unless you are friends and Powerplay territories are quite big. Plus this is where intel on a rivals behavior and habits come in, and knowing when / if a system is free of attackers.

This is miles more involving than what we have now. You don't need to do recon, you don't need to build sensibly. Its all routine, week in, week out which is not exactly exciting.

Exactly! It's NOT explicit 1:1 fighting; it's competitive hauling. And combat in competitive hauling is completely unnecessary! It's still JUST as competitive without combat involved!

 

[DemiserofD]

Except its fully within your power to run away, learn to fight back, or go to another system, or ask for help- the team aspect. This is on top of (through learning what powers favour) diverting or distracting these 'top players'.

Ah yes, the game that's 'fair' when your choices are 'run away'(become useless), 'learn to fight back'(definitely die), 'go to another system'(again, become useless), or 'ask for help'(become a second class citizen to the combat overlords).

No thanks.

The game is CURRENTLY fair. You can haul, THEY can haul. Can't get much fairer than that!

 

[Rubbernuke]

'Hiding' behind matchmaking? I'm explaining why matchmaking exists, and why the lack of matchmaking in Elite would unfairly bias it towards the highest echelons of players, that's just common sense.

Except as I explained in my last post, its not like that. You are not spawned into a locked room with a psycho each time, you have do options as an individual as well as a team.

Anyways, none of what you've just said matters, if the problems as you've laid them out are true.

In order to stop the defenders from fortifying, they must attack the systems being fortified. This means the defending players will also be there, balancing out the offense, unless they're outnumbered, in which case they'd have lost anyway, as well, OOPP or not.

And what about attacking other systems? Powers have between forty and a hundred potential sites to attack, or use as a distraction.

If it was brute numbers then the smaller powers would be steamrollered long ago. Players do put in the effort. Did you know one power was UMed top to toe by just five people? It was done in open too...imagine what would have happened if another wing had turned up....

The only result is making combat players the most important aspect, as the haulers will be complete ineffective without the combat players to defend them.

IE, making haulers second-class citizens.

Or, that haulers become better at what they do, like what happens today- ask the Winters haulers what its like, are they second class?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Exactly! It's NOT explicit 1:1 fighting; it's competitive hauling. And combat in competitive hauling is completely unnecessary! It's still JUST as competitive without combat involved!

Its that now, and look how popular that is, hauling in total safety, making direct attack virtually impossible. How is that being competitive? Any hauling should be subject to attack, so that you can't have near 100% efficiency.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Ah yes, the game that's 'fair' when your choices are 'run away'(become useless)

You are still alive, HW and try again. You lose time, but you are not destroyed.

'learn to fight back'(definitely die)

How do you know that? Why is it you think ED players are either stone cold killers or sheep?

go to another system'(again, become useless)

Fortify a quieter system. Not useless. Or help the powers BGS somewhere, not useless.

or 'ask for help'(become a second class citizen to the combat overlords).

Oh dear. When has asking for help been a sign of weakness? All powers without question train and nurture new blood.

No thanks.

Yes please.

The game is CURRENTLY fair. You can haul, THEY can haul. Can't get much fairer than that!

So, how can you UM via hauling? How do I in power A stop you in power B hauling, when all you have to do is get to 100%, after which my effort is wasted?

And for a bonus question, how do I get your power to drop a system if its the first one fortified?

 

[DemiserofD]

Again, none of what you're saying will be impacted by the presence of open-only.

Right now, you have haulers, they have haulers.

In OOPP, you'll have combat players, they'll have combat players. Only the defender will have the home field advantage, so in fact, both undermining and fortifying will become harder, only fortifying will be less hard due to home field advantage.

So as far as the balance of power is concerned, nothing would change.

I'm really struggling to see how OOPP would make for any sort of improvement.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Again, none of what you're saying will be impacted by the presence of open-only.

Right now, you have haulers, they have haulers.

Which answers precisely nothing. How do I stop you fortifying a place that I want you to drop? How do you do that in a way that generates emergent situations, rather than just grind better? How is it you can UM a power totally and they drop hardly anything (if at all?) while they can cancel as much as they like, in total safety?

In OOPP, you'll have combat players, they'll have combat players. Only the defender will have the home field advantage, so in fact, both undermining and fortifying will become harder, only fortifying will be less hard due to home field advantage.

So as far as the balance of power is concerned, nothing would change.

And in my numerous previous posts I've explained what would hypothetically happen. Uncapped UM would keep a system in play, so that unless you fortify 100% clear of the UM total, its considered undermined. This means you have to haul more fort materials, as well as fight more. But what happens when another system is hit, and you only have a few hours left in the cycle?

How is it an advantage when all fortifying has to go to one place (as with everything being set as inbound), so an attacker can put pressure on you in two places? You underestimate how effective people can be Uming, what happens when a second, or third system goes over the 'mega' UM threshold? Do that for five high profit systems and you could wipe off 500 - 650 CC, which for a lot of powers is a big blow. Do that for ten, and thats a big problem. Eventually Powers would find equilibrium, but even then the same objectives would happen as powers grow again.

 

[DemiserofD]

Which answers precisely nothing. How do I stop you fortifying a place that I want you to drop? How do you do that in a way that generates emergent situations, rather than just grind better? How is it you can UM a power totally and they drop hardly anything (if at all?) while they can cancel as much as they like, in total safety?



And in my numerous previous posts I've explained what would hypothetically happen. Uncapped UM would keep a system in play, so that unless you fortify 100% clear of the UM total, its considered undermined. This means you have to haul more fort materials, as well as fight more. But what happens when another system is hit, and you only have a few hours left in the cycle?

How is it an advantage when all fortifying has to go to one place (as with everything being set as inbound), so an attacker can put pressure on you in two places? You underestimate how effective people can be Uming, what happens when a second, or third system goes over the 'mega' UM threshold? Do that for five high profit systems and you could wipe off 500 - 650 CC, which for a lot of powers is a big blow. Do that for ten, and thats a big problem. Eventually Powers would find equilibrium, but even then the same objectives would happen as powers grow again.

Why do you deserve the right to stop me from fortifying? That's not a requirement for fair competition. If you want to beat me, then undermine more than I haul. But uncapping UMing doesn't have anything to do with oopp.

Honestly, I find your claim that powers would reach equilibrium to be highly suspect. What happens in a pvp game when one side has better players than the other? The one side wins. And in this case, you'd basically end up with a bunch of the best pvpers all in one faction, sitting in enemy home systems, blowing up everyone who tried to fortify anything. That's no solution, either.

Essentially, the game must bias towards stability, or inevitably it will collapse entirely, with precisely one victor rising to the top. That's exactly what the Pareto Principle shows to be true.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

Ah yes, the game that's 'fair' when your choices are 'run away'(become useless), 'learn to fight back'(definitely die), 'go to another system'(again, become useless), or 'ask for help'(become a second class citizen to the combat overlords).

No thanks.

The game is CURRENTLY fair. You can haul, THEY can haul. Can't get much fairer than that!

it all depends on what you perceive as winning. To me, who hauls in open powerplay, the objective is to deliver my cargo, not to gain enemy kills (I've got another ship for that). If I'm interdicted by another player, they had better have a fast ship to try and keep up because I've built my clipper to be something which can outrun most other ships. Yeah, occasionally I get caught but that's part of the risk I'm taking. If you're hauling for a power, you really have to play it as a blockade runner or smuggler. It is possible to get the cargo through and outrunning the interdicting players does lead to some first class trolling !

Its that now, and look how popular that is, hauling in total safety, making direct attack virtually impossible. How is that being competitive? Any hauling should be subject to attack, so that you can't have near 100% efficiency.

The thing is that powerplay does break down into five tasks ; Preparation, Expansion , Expansion Opposition, Control and Control Opposition. Where Direct Opposition is important (Expansion and Control), it does enhance the experience being in open. In Preparation, its not as much as that really feels like a mini CG and being in open doesn't really add to the experience. Ironically people want open only in perpetration to help stop the 5C and Bot commanders. I would probably be in favour for increasing the rewards for playing in open.

1. If you are in pvt/solo - you are rewarded as normal.
2. If you fly in open and do not flip back to pvt/solo at any point during your activity, you are rewarded with Merits * 3.
3. To keep the game in balance, all targets for Preperation, Expansion and Control are raised by 2.5 times.

That way there is an incentive to play in open but you can still make a contribution in solo/pvt.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Why do you deserve the right to stop me from fortifying? That's not a requirement for fair competition. If you want to beat me, then undermine more than I haul. But uncapping UMing doesn't have anything to do with oopp.

Why do you deserve the right to stop me from fortifying?

Why do I deserve the right to stop you fortifying? Because I'm in a different power, and eleven powers are fighting to be number one. This, in a game where you should be alert for danger at all times. If only that actually happened...

That's not a requirement for fair competition.

Nothing is fair in ED, you do whatever you have to do to win. If you don't want to get hit, don't apply a target decal on yourself by pledging. If you do pledge, use what you know and learn. Why is Powerplay exempt from that?

But uncapping UMing doesn't have anything to do with oopp.

It does, as part of the trifecta of unified fort direction, uncapped UM and open. Along with the other change of condensing Powerplays BGS footprint to control systems only, works to bring people together.

Now, as I wrote here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-mode-agnostic-version-ideas.556921/

It would be possible to have uncapped UM in the 'regular' game- the problem is that it just adds grind without giving anything back- you still have the issue of (IMO) flat gameplay lacking deeper emergent potential.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The thing is that powerplay does break down into five tasks ; Preparation, Expansion , Expansion Opposition, Control and Control Opposition. Where Direct Opposition is important (Expansion and Control), it does enhance the experience being in open. In Preparation, its not as much as that really feels like a mini CG and being in open doesn't really add to the experience. Ironically people want open only in perpetration to help stop the 5C and Bot commanders. I would probably be in favour for increasing the rewards for playing in open.

1. If you are in pvt/solo - you are rewarded as normal.
2. If you fly in open and do not flip back to pvt/solo at any point during your activity, you are rewarded with Merits * 3.
3. To keep the game in balance, all targets for Preperation, Expansion and Control are raised by 2.5 times.

That way there is an incentive to play in open but you can still make a contribution in solo/pvt.

If you look in my previous post, I outline what I think is as close to a compromise as is possible.

 

[DemiserofD]

Why do I deserve the right to stop you fortifying? Because I'm in a different power, and eleven powers are fighting to be number one. This, in a game where you should be alert for danger at all times. If only that actually happened...

Nothing is fair in ED, you do whatever you have to do to win. If you don't want to get hit, don't apply a target decal on yourself by pledging. If you do pledge, use what you know and learn. Why is Powerplay exempt from that?

So your argument for why oopp should happen is, because you believe you deserve the right to shoot members of the opposing power?

That has nothing to do with making powerplay better as a whole, that's just expanding the aspects you, personally, enjoy.

It does, as part of the trifecta of unified fort direction, uncapped UM and open. Along with the other change of condensing Powerplays BGS footprint to control systems only, works to bring people together.

Now, as I wrote here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/powerplay-mode-agnostic-version-ideas.556921/

It would be possible to have uncapped UM in the 'regular' game- the problem is that it just adds grind without giving anything back- you still have the issue of (IMO) flat gameplay lacking deeper emergent potential.

So what? You can't just dismiss aspects you don't like by calling them 'grinding'. People enjoy those aspects, and no matter how much you dismiss it as 'grind', uncapping UMing fixes the only real problem you've actually presented, with no relation to oopp at all.

Face the facts, none of the problems you've highlighted would be solved by oopp. You(and others like you) would enjoy it more, but that's not relevant.