You know, I wonder if you'd get more traction from the idea of Frontier hosted Powerplay instances than Open Only. It would have the same benefits as Open Only would, only without all the avenues for abuse bad actors have in regards to the current peer-to-peer setup.
The fundamental problem with making Powerplay Open-Only.
- Thread starter DemiserofD
- Start date
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
Re: carriers - they can be used when the pressure is really on, but just like flying a clipper or T7 instead of a T9 for SC agility, your delivery efficiency is diminished (because logistics). You've been forced to change tactics and go another route. It's fun actually, because you're running the blockade and getting one up on the blockaders using your squad's in-game resources. It's less efficient than a clear run in SC but more efficient than waiting it out or getting blown up trying. Of course you might not get blown up but you don't know that in advance; even if the expectation value of merits delivered is unchanged vs running the blockade in SC, the FC gives you better control of the outcome rather than leaving it to chance.
Last edited:
In the end FD really need to redesign Powerplay from the ground up if they want it to work in all three modes, there is nothing they can do really with its current implementation other than go Open really. The proposed changes are in effect molding it into a defacto 'in game' PvP mode, which makes sense if you want the game to cater to more people and keep the 'main' game cleaner, warts and all.
It all comes down to FD and how much effort they want to expend- Open would make waves and fit a need, multi mode would require a total overhaul and really a new focus- all the time trying not to replicate the BGS which does multi mode 'right'.
While there may be other issues with PP that need to be addressed, I'm afraid this is a competitive process working against others to disrupt their plans and work done. Where you can take all relevant actions to cause harm in the relative safety of PG/Solo, and with complete anonymity, that just doesn't add up as in any way fair or reasonable.
If you are competing against others and are able to ruin their day by countering their hours of work, it should be in a way where they can identify who is responsible and take steps to try and stop them, and that only occurs if open only.
The claim that it favours combat then in what is a process pitting 2 sides against each other is not accurate, while some minor balancing may be needed, it mainly creates the need to work tactically rather than flying around safely and with anonymity.
As to the "gameplay available in all modes" argument. I have no problems with it remaining and effecting your bank balance, ranks and access to PP items. But as with all actions in the game that alter the galaxy whether it's PP, BGS or even completing CGs for changes to be input, I think those effects should only count if done in open. If you are working to enforce a change on others, it should be done in a mode where those who do not want the change to occur can counter you.
Obviously there are issues that need to be addressed with that, for example pad blocking at a CG to disrupt it, but they are not excuse for me to justify the "I'm safe and anonymous" button when enforcing changes to the galaxy on others. It simply highlights an issue that needs to be fixed.
If you are competing against others and are able to ruin their day by countering their hours of work, it should be in a way where they can identify who is responsible and take steps to try and stop them, and that only occurs if open only.
The claim that it favours combat then in what is a process pitting 2 sides against each other is not accurate, while some minor balancing may be needed, it mainly creates the need to work tactically rather than flying around safely and with anonymity.
As to the "gameplay available in all modes" argument. I have no problems with it remaining and effecting your bank balance, ranks and access to PP items. But as with all actions in the game that alter the galaxy whether it's PP, BGS or even completing CGs for changes to be input, I think those effects should only count if done in open. If you are working to enforce a change on others, it should be done in a mode where those who do not want the change to occur can counter you.
Obviously there are issues that need to be addressed with that, for example pad blocking at a CG to disrupt it, but they are not excuse for me to justify the "I'm safe and anonymous" button when enforcing changes to the galaxy on others. It simply highlights an issue that needs to be fixed.
Last edited:
Just thought I'll say here: I've never PowerPlayed but I've been convinced by the arguments for OOPP; I can see the logic in it. If I could see the proponents of OOPP saying, "It's just PP we want, the BGS shouldn't be Open-only", they would have my wholehearted support. But if OOPP is really just a negotiating ploy and intended as the thin end of a wedge to lead to OOBGS, I won't support it. I find the situation ambiguous at the moment: too many proponents of OOPP won't commit themselves regarding BGS, so I feel suspicious. Any comments?
Oof, sounds like a lot of faffing around. Also... scan a beacon then get to a destination? Sounds like some sort of arena game.
Why don't you guys just campaign for some sort of CTF game that goes across systems and you get points for delivering the flag? Like CQC but with any ship and played over weekly cycles.
Might be a lot more fun and engaging that snoozeplay.
Hell, i'd be tempted to get involved. At least then everyone would be flying ships kitted for combat and running. A level playing field, which is what is wrong with PP in general.
Its up to FD really, Sandro drew the line and so will the current leads. To me an Open PP should compliment a multi mode BGS to offer a rounded set of features to experience.
In reality its not that onerous- you drop to the beacon, scan for POI drop location (where scan time would be important, and that its a window for the NPCs there to attack), you jump out and SC to the POI. Drop, fly near and unload (like the hidden trader POIs), and jump out to repeat the cycle. Its no more faff than what people do now, except it requires more things to do and be aware of. Its miles better than what we do now, which is fly to the same identical location and face no threats.
Think of the scan mechanic to find the pirate lord missions, its like that.
A bit like delivering fortification prep or combat merits you mean
Last edited:
I think that the fact that you like one and not the other would be reflected in the game's community and by FDev (who want to appeal to that community). Some will want both, some neither. And some in between will be more convinced about OOPP than OOBGS, tipping the balance towards OOPP and away from OOBGS.
Given I'd say more people play the BGS than powerplay, and probably already more commonly in closed modes than for PP, opposition to OOBGS would be greater. Even those who don't "play" the BGS will be disappointed if their actions don't affect the galaxy. The game may feel smaller to me in open if they don't too.
Although I would like to see BGS big-hitters in open (e.g. harsher diminishing returns in closed modes I might agree with), them not being in open has less impact than it does for PP. The underlying concepts of the two frameworks are opposite re: modality - one is all-inclusive (BGS), the other is opt-in and automatically adversarial (PP). For more reasons than this, OOBGS is just harder to argue for.
I know that development cycles can change things and the game is expected to evolve, but all modes affecting the galaxy is explicitly stated in the marketing, though not necessarily equally. As a socially stunted PvE player I’m not in favour of OOBGS though I have a little sympathy towards players who are keener on the conflict-driven emergent gameplay, but I’m not convinced the BGS and open social mechanics are really geared for that. OOPP is a different kettle of fish however, and that’s not in my sphere of gameplay so I’ll defer to dedicated PPers on that one.
PP for me is a way to get PP items, nothing more.
That is because none of the PP factions stand for values I would support, nor do any support the democracies of the galaxy due to the way it is set up. But as an external observer I support OOPP.
I support OOBGS a lot more, and as I said anything that alters the galaxy. Most people I know who play BGS as a primary part of the game feel the same. I accept that may just be the circle I have dealings with, but some of those were ardent "BGS all modes" supporters until they had to combat an unknown and unidentifiable enemy from Solo/PG attacking them. They had nobody to negotiate with, nobody to blame and nobody to stop as they were hiding away in Solo/PG. They all changed their minds after the experience of those modes being used to hide an attack from safety of consequences or being identified.
As it's always easier to destroy than build, this makes an unbalanced and unfair playing field.
For those that would feel the universe and game is emptier when they cannot effect the wider galaxy from PG/Solo, I'm afraid I would say if you want to interact and change the galaxy be a mode where the universe and galaxy can interact and change your course. Sitting on the fence wanted the good bits but not the so called "bad" just enables sneaky underhanded gameplay to hurt others with no consequences.
So I declare, I would want to see OOPP and OOBGS. I doubt I will get it, but that will not stop me, as a 100% PvE player, wanting it and all the consequences it brings
Ah, back again. And great to see the forum content never changes. I get nostalgia every time I open this site.
I can effectively summarise this PP argument as discussed over the years for you, with the advantage of being able to do so objectively.
The problem: as you describe it, PP is a load of donkey's nipples because the most "efficient" way to complete the task is to sit in solo and do things unopposed. This makes for incredibly unengaging gameplay, and causes a nightmare in strategy/logistics, because players will join the other side and ruin them by voting to expand to stupid systems etc.
Not the answer: make it Open-only, because this game is supposed to support equal opportunity across all game modes.
Also not the answer: pretend FD can make it more engaging by doing what we already do, but "a bit more exciting". Don't get me wrong, PvE needs a massive engagement factor overhaul, you aren't wrong - but the game is fundamentally meant to be better than "a solo game where our stats match up in the background".
The actual answer: Have some objectives, or types of objectives, able to be participated in from Open only and entirely different objectives from PG/Solo. All players can contribute, and each objective type means no more than the other. This way the Solo/PG haulers can do their thing in peace and contribute to their power, BUT to succeed overall there will need to be Open players completing the other objective. And for the players in Open with a closed system objective, the game naturally diversifies at the hand of players and not more dev coding. Players will naturally form roles such as blockaders, escorts etc. and form tactics such as having fake blockade runners to distract them.
Make PP goodagain.
I can effectively summarise this PP argument as discussed over the years for you, with the advantage of being able to do so objectively.
The problem: as you describe it, PP is a load of donkey's nipples because the most "efficient" way to complete the task is to sit in solo and do things unopposed. This makes for incredibly unengaging gameplay, and causes a nightmare in strategy/logistics, because players will join the other side and ruin them by voting to expand to stupid systems etc.
Not the answer: make it Open-only, because this game is supposed to support equal opportunity across all game modes.
Also not the answer: pretend FD can make it more engaging by doing what we already do, but "a bit more exciting". Don't get me wrong, PvE needs a massive engagement factor overhaul, you aren't wrong - but the game is fundamentally meant to be better than "a solo game where our stats match up in the background".
The actual answer: Have some objectives, or types of objectives, able to be participated in from Open only and entirely different objectives from PG/Solo. All players can contribute, and each objective type means no more than the other. This way the Solo/PG haulers can do their thing in peace and contribute to their power, BUT to succeed overall there will need to be Open players completing the other objective. And for the players in Open with a closed system objective, the game naturally diversifies at the hand of players and not more dev coding. Players will naturally form roles such as blockaders, escorts etc. and form tactics such as having fake blockade runners to distract them.
Make PP good
oops, double post.
Last edited:
I suppose you could just keep blocking everyone you see or who ganks you until the people who regularly play are all blocked.
Is there a way to automate the blocking process? Would be nice to have a ganker player list that can be loaded into your game to auto block those on the list... I mean, they have a combat logger list out there, so why not have the opposite for serial gankers?
Is there a way to automate the blocking process? Would be nice to have a ganker player list that can be loaded into your game to auto block those on the list... I mean, they have a combat logger list out there, so why not have the opposite for serial gankers?
In reality its not that onerous- you drop to the beacon, scan for POI drop location (where scan time would be important, and that its a window for the NPCs there to attack), you jump out and SC to the POI. Drop, fly near and unload (like the hidden trader POIs), and jump out to repeat the cycle. Its no more faff than what people do now, except it requires more things to do and be aware of. Its miles better than what we do now, which is fly to the same identical location and face no threats.
Think of the scan mechanic to find the pirate lord missions, its like that.
A bit like delivering fortification prep or combat merits you mean
No no, i can get behind this idea. I can see a problem with choke points, which would mean depending on the time of day and how many people online participating it could make it very one sided... but then that might switch around at different times.
But overall, since its data instead of cargo, this is infinitely preferrable.
No more one sided encounters. Sure, you could customize between either speed or strength, but that's like difference between choosing Scout or Heavy in TF2.
I agree with this; I see no reason why powers shouldn't just have their own set of missions like any BGS faction. I cover this and more in my other thread on powerplay; https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/fixing-5c-attacks.555836/
This is exactly what I was talking about in the OP. To reiterate my point I made there, why is it any better for a different mode to have dominance? Right now, solo and hauling is king. With the new system, open and combat would be king. Why is this an improvement? It's just moving the balance of power, it's not actually making that balance any more...balanced.
There's a fundamental problem with this assumption, that open-only would fix this problem. Yes, it's a problem, but making things open only wouldn't FIX that problem. You'd still have exactly the same problems, because that's how Powerplay is designed, open-only or not. So this wouldn't really change at all.
Dull to you, perhaps, but clearly not dull to all the other players who are currently playing it. By what right do you disregard them?
SOME people want structured pvp. SOME people prefer the more calm, competitive aspects of hauling against one another in a race. Why is making one dominant over the other an improvement?
I think we both know that polls made here aren't exactly representative of actual player opinions. People only come here in the first place if they're incredibly passionate or have something to complain about, and right now, the loudest complaints are about wanting pvp. This pre-biases any polls you might get, heavily weighting them in favor of something that may not actually be in the community's best interests.
Well, technically speaking, if they are doing it for PP they are not ganking, because its within the framework of the proscribed activity rather than something someone just does for the lulz... in theory.
However, you have no real way of knowing who is playing PP just as an excuse to gank and those who actually care about their power.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/fixing-5c-attacks.555836/
They should have missions- Sandros proposed changes alluded to it, and I went along similar lines as well- its finding the right place for them, considering that the BGS does it already- do you need another feature that offers the same? You could make (as suggested by others) replace all fortifying with missions, where one mission = a set percentage of securing a system via themed missions (criminal stuff for Delaine, BHy for Hudson eg).
In the end its what FD are willing to do- so far thats not very much so missions are wishful thinking unless they suggest otherwise.
The problem is that solo is the best mode because you can't stop people, and the NPCs simply don't do anything. One way out could be to make say 50% of fortification open only- but in the end Powerplay has to have a bias towards instability, otherwise you build in eventual stagnation via easy defense.
What Open would do (along with the other mooted changes) is that fortification would slow and be disruptable. Uncapped UM would ensure you can't fortify yourself into winning, making players have to run the gauntlet and people to protect them. And again, Powerplay needs to be combat centric, otherwise it easily slips into stagnation because hauling is far too easy.
That's the exact point I made in the OP. Right now, you CAN stop people; you outhaul them. It's completely biased against combat players, but completely fair for haulers.
Why is moving things such that it's completely biased in favor of combat players any better? It's still completely biased, just in a different direction.
As I said in the OP, pvp will NEVER be the same as pve, and it's impossible to make it so, because pvp is based on relative player skill, while pve is stagnant. If some players get better, others will also get better, meaning pvp stays the same, with the same top players having complete dominance over everyone else. It is literally impossible to balance npcs in the way you desire. It's simply not physically possible.
Unfortunately, so would undermining, meaning the fundamental problems of stagnation would remain unchanged. Changing to open only wouldn't fix anything in this regard.
Thats the point- Powerplay needs bias to combat to make powers unstable the larger they get, which in turn allows more systems to fall away and be fought over. Right now the bubble is stuffed full, and only poor moves left. If more powers fought and fell apart they'd be more to fight over.
If going open, unifying the fort direction and uncapped UM was a thing, it would make a difference. It would force a change in tactics, and make deliveries much less certain because you have everyone going to a handful of places. Less certainty means an actual dynamic game.
Like there is a lot of players left in Powerplay- people have voted with their feet. Plus, I don't disregard them, many of my ideas on this very thread involve them- my grand idea for Powerplay has stuff just for them in fact.
Powerplay is not about 'calm'. Why is it people can effectively fight a gang war in isolation? Why can't I stop you fortifying directly? Why is it that in solo NPCs barely register when hauling? You pledge, you take responsibility for what comes your way.
FD and OA asked the question openly (if you excuse the pun) and you got an answer. Its better than speaking for a silent player, surely?