The fundamental problem with making Powerplay Open-Only.

[DemiserofD]

Multi mode Powerplay is about maths. If you read Sandro Sammarcos proposal he and FD admit its far to easy to defend, leading to a static gameboard. Its why uncapping UM was suggested, because it then puts the pressure back onto the defender. In a multi mode context this would be a grind without end, while in Open it would focus players on that spot so you could drive off Uming rivals as well as fortify, providing more options to defend as well as attack.



And as I've explained twice now, you can't do this. Any attack has to fully UM a rivals most profitable systems and for them not to fortify them- a situation thats incredibly rare because each power sees them as a priority.

Take three examples: Mahon has been attacked twice top to bottom, and was completely fortified in five days. Utopia was attacked in a similar way and was fortified everywhere in three days. Now, if you can level an entire Power and UM everything and that still is not enough, what is? To get to this state in the first place requires months of patience, and even then its trivial to escape- that is unless 5C take things further.



Open gives you options, as well as making your opposition (and you) unpredictable. Taken as a whole (Open to unify playerbase, uncapped UM hotspots and unified fort direction) it does an awful lot to make things much more tricky defending- which is good, because it makes large powers more difficult to hold, and in turn allows more decent systems to be broken off to be fought over.

Well then, that seems like a problem of the fundamental game design. Because I'm not convinced that open only would have any significant effect on this problem, as you've laid it out. Defenders would have home field advantage in every circumstance, so assuming equal effort on both sides, any defending power will still end up fully fortified, just like now.

The outcome would remain exactly the same, the only difference would be the haulers would now be wholly reliant on the combat pilots, making them second-class citizens. Necessary ones perhaps, but still second class.

But in the end, open-only wouldn't change the fundamental problem at all.

 

[lefty1117]

It's really not about cash, it's about a level playing field in the meta game. That said, open only isn't the only or even the best way to achieve that. But it does seem like the most possible, technically speaking.

It doesn't have to necessarily be cash related of course, but the point is whether it's via discounts or other methods, incentivize players to want to play in Open, but still give an option for those who can't or strongly don't want to. I don't think it has to be either/or.

 

[K7Hyperion]

Defenders would have home field advantage in every circumstance

So...nothing changes from today, as factions can reliably fortify all of their core systems in solo with 0 threat to that outcome week after week. And yes, defenders always have an inherent advantage, that is a fundamental rule of combat.

But in the end, open-only wouldn't change the fundamental problem at all.

That's right. As I've gone into at length on the previous page, that is why it needs to be supported by a complete overhaul. Its quite clear that Rubbernuke understands this, based on his replies. You are defending that a move to open-only without any additional design support would be disastrous, and pretty much everyone here is agreeing with you while disagreeing that solo-mode Powerplay is fine to remain in an overhauled Powerplay.

How's this for a summary question:

If the proper fundamental features were successfully developed and implemented in-game (addressing all of your previously stated concerns regarding coordination of players, matchmaking of wings, etc.) to support full-fledged competitive, open-only Powerplay, what is your argument for allowing a solo mode to remain, and why is that important?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

It doesn't have to necessarily be cash related of course, but the point is whether it's via discounts or other methods, incentivize players to want to play in Open, but still give an option for those who can't or strongly don't want to. I don't think it has to be either/or.

It doesn't have to be. But that moves us to the question of what/how much are the devs actually likely to consider doing? Given the likely constraints on scope, there are very careful design choices needed to produce something that makes a positive difference to overall engagement and quality of experience. Hence so much ardent discussion I guess. We seem to agree that promotion of powerplay in open is a central thrust of any change.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

the only difference would be the haulers would now be wholly reliant on the combat pilots, making them second-class citizens. Necessary ones perhaps, but still second class.

Just to pick on this point. Even if we leave aside the majority who are in fact dual-role players, then it sounds actually as though all players are necessary here, both types of players depend on each other to fulfil the task. Your problem seems to be the necessity of teamwork?

 

[K7Hyperion]

Just to pick on this point. Even if we leave aside the majority who are in fact dual-role players, then it sounds actually as though all players are necessary here, both types of players depend on each other to fulfil the task. Your problem seems to be the necessity of teamwork?

Here's what I don't get from his argument about mandatory teamwork.

Here's my standard engineered combat Corvette: https://s.orbis.zone/azM5
I make a few changes to the core internals and I can now run 296Tn of cargo, without sacrificing any of my previous combat capability: https://s.orbis.zone/azN2

Is it less efficient than a 790Tn Type 9? Yes of course. But in an open-only setting if my desired gameplay loop would be to haul Powerplay Supplies, I would rather fly the modified Vette than a defenseless hauler. Just being in the Vette may be deterrent enough to dissuade some pvp'ers looking for easier targets. With more targeted engineering (prismatics vs. Bi-weaves, more module reinforcement vs. shield enforcement) I'd make it into a proper blockade runner. I'd be far less reliant on an escort, and teamwork, than a dedicated Type 9.

Again, this only if I wanted to contribute to open-only PP as a solo player. Preferably, FDev would give us the means to matchmake easier in-game. A wing of Corvette blockade runners would be fun

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Here's what I don't get from his argument about mandatory teamwork.

Here's my standard engineered combat Corvette: https://s.orbis.zone/azM5
I make a few changes to the core internals and I can now run 296Tn of cargo, without sacrificing any of my previous combat capability: https://s.orbis.zone/azN2

Is it less efficient than a 790Tn Type 9? Yes of course. But in an open-only setting if my desired gameplay loop would be to haul Powerplay Supplies, I would rather fly the modified Vette than a defenseless hauler. Just being in the Vette may be deterrent enough to dissuade some pvp'ers looking for easier targets. With more targeted engineering (prismatics vs. Bi-weaves, more module reinforcement vs. shield enforcement) I'd make it into a proper blockade runner. I'd be far less reliant on an escort, and teamwork, than a dedicated Type 9.

Again, this only if I wanted to contribute to open-only PP as a solo player. Preferably, FDev would give us the means to matchmake easier in-game. A wing of Corvette blockade runners would be fun

Yeah I confess there's some appeal to being a lone wolf (or sheep?) and just using your favoured combination of build savvy and skill to do your hauling without reference to a team. But you are talking about a corvette, which is not an entry level hauler. Many of our recruits join with a few million credits and little experience and it's important to have safer forms of contribution and a progression towards the more risky elements. For us this is BGS work, preps and maybe the quieter expansions. Not 2nd class activities, crucial ones, just less dangerous.

A hauling corvette/cutter/conda with adequate defences can tip the balance in team PvP too.

 

[kurush]

I strongly suspect that the net result would be SOME players moving to Open to try to continue, but as pvp rapidly comes to dominate the powerplay experience, and players discover that becoming skilled enough at pvp to succeed requires a much larger investment of time and effort than they're willing or able to put forward, the end result would be a powerplay far less active than even the current diminished version.

Open only PP is really the gankers last stand. They somehow hope that instancing will get also magically fixed and people network connection become perfect. Also, that the same people won't be making their networks connections bad on purpose. It is also worth mentioning that existing blocking feature would be very useful here: just get a list of opposing faction commanders and add block them all.

For some reason they hope that the game will bring somebody into their instance for them to harass, ignoring a lot of design decisions and game features, designed to do the exact opposite.

 

[DemiserofD]

So...nothing changes from today, as factions can reliably fortify all of their core systems in solo with 0 threat to that outcome week after week. And yes, defenders always have an inherent advantage, that is a fundamental rule of combat.


That's right. As I've gone into at length on the previous page, that is why it needs to be supported by a complete overhaul. Its quite clear that Rubbernuke understands this, based on his replies. You are defending that a move to open-only without any additional design support would be disastrous, and pretty much everyone here is agreeing with you while disagreeing that solo-mode Powerplay is fine to remain in an overhauled Powerplay.

How's this for a summary question:

If the proper fundamental features were successfully developed and implemented in-game (addressing all of your previously stated concerns regarding coordination of players, matchmaking of wings, etc.) to support full-fledged competitive, open-only Powerplay, what is your argument for allowing a solo mode to remain, and why is that important?

Thanks for the concise reply!

I think that, if the proper features were correctly implemented, then open-only wouldn't be necessary at all. Players would naturally move towards Open for the benefits it provides, most notably the social and teamwork aspects.

My basic viewpoint is this: In the current iteration of Powerplay, OOPP would not help. In an ideal version of powerplay, OOPP wouldn't be necessary, because the players would be there already, of their own free will.

 

[DemiserofD]

Just to pick on this point. Even if we leave aside the majority who are in fact dual-role players, then it sounds actually as though all players are necessary here, both types of players depend on each other to fulfil the task. Your problem seems to be the necessity of teamwork?

Think of it this way. In many MMOs, there are different roles necessary for doing things like Raids. You've got Tanks, Healers, and DPS.

Only, everyone wants to be DPS, even though the other two are relatively engaging and entertaining. In Elite, even that isn't the case. Often times there are wait lists days or WEEKS long, even with a class that's fun to play. How much worse is it going to be for a class that's essentially a duck in a barrel? Nobody likes escort missions, how much worse is it going to be playing the one being escorted?

This isn't about teamwork. It's about one class being a helpless punching bag while the others do all the fun stuff. If the combat players fail, the hauler dies. If the combat player succeeds, the hauler lives.

At that point, the hauler might as well just be an NPC.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well then, that seems like a problem of the fundamental game design. Because I'm not convinced that open only would have any significant effect on this problem, as you've laid it out. Defenders would have home field advantage in every circumstance, so assuming equal effort on both sides, any defending power will still end up fully fortified, just like now.

Would they? You are assuming activity is constant and numbers are equal all the time. Open is not a cure all, but it certainly makes for situations to become more dynamic when they arise. Uncapped UM would compel a power into focussing on one place until its out of danger, if at all. It also allows attackers to directly target a certain system, and for both to fairly duke it out in a way thats actually generating gameplay situations rather than reducing them down into grind races that require little actual flying skill to do.

The outcome would remain exactly the same, the only difference would be the haulers would now be wholly reliant on the combat pilots, making them second-class citizens. Necessary ones perhaps, but still second class.

And he we go again with the 'second class citizens' 'reliant on combat pilots'. First: hauling is a job just like UM is in Powerplay. We all do it, we all help others who do it. You've read examples of whole powers who do it (Winters) who haul to expand as well as defend. And if you actually understood Powerplay or tactics at all, you'd know fortifiers would be the lifeblood of a power, and the most protected and trained pilots because of the potential dangers.

But in the end, open-only wouldn't change the fundamental problem at all.

Then we just have to disagree on that one.

 

[Northpin]

If the proper fundamental features were successfully developed and implemented in-game (addressing all of your previously stated concerns regarding coordination of players, matchmaking of wings, etc.) to support full-fledged competitive, open-only Powerplay, what is your argument for allowing a solo mode to remain, and why is that important?

Because the game is designed to provide compelling and non limiting game options for all types of players.
To the social type that enjoy interactions with strangers, To the social type that enjoy interactions only with his friends and to the one that enjoys a gaming experience not disturbed by the direct actions of other players.
This is the game that we all payed for and agreed to its terms when we started to play.

Any open-only proposal does nothing less than it forcefully limits the game options of two types of players for the benefit of (a small part of) one type.
And for a game feature that requires no direct contact between players to produce its designed effects.

as @DemiserofD already said, they need to provide (non-game-breaking) incentives for people to play in Open. That is all.

And by non-game-breaking incentives i mean something like sharing wing massacre missions with your wingmen which provide a strong incentive, but not a game-breaking one.
Doing those missions in a wing will add to the fun factor and will increase the direct benefits as everyone can get up to 4 times the reward they can get in solo, yet FD allows those missions to be done in Solo and a lot of people prefer to do those missions in Solo.
That should say something about FD position regarding non-limiting player choices.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Thanks for the concise reply!

I think that, if the proper features were correctly implemented, then open-only wouldn't be necessary at all. Players would naturally move towards Open for the benefits it provides, most notably the social and teamwork aspects.

My basic viewpoint is this: In the current iteration of Powerplay, OOPP would not help. In an ideal version of powerplay, OOPP wouldn't be necessary, because the players would be there already, of their own free will.

I actually agree with you that Powerplay needs a total rewrite. If you had read further you'd also know that so far (from what we know) FD don't want to do that at all. They are not willing to commit to that, so we have changes that are small in scope. Read the proposal, properly and you'll see FD themselves know parts don't work- NPCs in particular don't scale to Powerplays level at all, making one mode risk free, distorting any resulting tactics that may evolve. The only way to get opposition to scale is to replace NPCs with players. The other option is to scale merit rewards based on mode, since mixing players are far more dangerous.

 

[Northpin]

Open is not a cure all, but it certainly makes for situations to become more dynamic when they arise.

Yes, but not everyone wants that.
In the current setup the players that want dynamism can get that and at the same time the ones that don't can also get what they want
Win-Win-Win

compared with Open only which would make it like Win-Loss-Loss

 

[Rubbernuke]

Because the game is designed to provide compelling and non limiting game options for all types of players.
To the social type that enjoy interactions with strangers, To the social type that enjoy interactions only with his friends and to the one that enjoys a gaming experience not disturbed by the direct actions of other players.
This is the game that we all payed for and agreed to its terms when we started to play.

In a feature thats opt in, in a game thats about danger above all (but two modes out of three not providing that). That makes no sense in Powerplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, but not everyone wants that.
In the current setup the players that want dynamism can get that and at the same time the ones that don't can also get what they want
Win-Win-Win

compared with Open only which would make it like Win-Loss-Loss

Why should it be for everyone? Surely you want features that actually have a focus, rather than trying to please everyone (like PP has tried to do and failed)?

The problem with your statement is that this:

In the current setup the players that want dynamism can get that and at the same time the ones that don't can also get what they want
Win-Win-Win

Solo beats Open for efficiency and safety, meaning the feature is broken as a fair competitive mode. It can;t be both, its either one or the other.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Think of it this way. In many MMOs, there are different roles necessary for doing things like Raids. You've got Tanks, Healers, and DPS.

Only, everyone wants to be DPS, even though the other two are relatively engaging and entertaining. In Elite, even that isn't the case. Often times there are wait lists days or WEEKS long, even with a class that's fun to play. How much worse is it going to be for a class that's essentially a duck in a barrel? Nobody likes escort missions, how much worse is it going to be playing the one being escorted?

This isn't about teamwork. It's about one class being a helpless punching bag while the others do all the fun stuff. If the combat players fail, the hauler dies. If the combat player succeeds, the hauler lives.

At that point, the hauler might as well just be an NPC.

I just don't recognise the world you live in. Sorry.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Open only PP is really the gankers last stand. They somehow hope that instancing will get also magically fixed and people network connection become perfect. Also, that the same people won't be making their networks connections bad on purpose. It is also worth mentioning that existing blocking feature would be very useful here: just get a list of opposing faction commanders and add block them all.

For some reason they hope that the game will bring somebody into their instance for them to harass, ignoring a lot of design decisions and game features, designed to do the exact opposite.

Why is anyone with half a brain upvoting this? It's insulting.

However - it does highlight the issue that through a heavy handed blocking mechanic and other manipulations, open-only can be got around. THIS is a problem/obstacle with OOPP. But not everyone is going to exploit these underhand means, so all is not entirely lost.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Yes, but not everyone wants that.
In the current setup the players that want dynamism can get that and at the same time the ones that don't can also get what they want
Win-Win-Win

compared with Open only which would make it like Win-Loss-Loss

What you guys seem to want is not powerplay. Another meta-game called the Hutton mug race or something, is what you should be calling for. I mean that's a flippant suggestion, but something else that isn't what powerplay is stated to be and self-evidently is, and is a simple competition that by its design suggests mode agnosticism. Hauling CGs are arguably this, but provide no continuous player-driven narrative or central Galnet-worthy NPC protagonists. It could be a cool thing, a jeux sans frontiers between the powers/superpowers. But not powerplay.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Think of it this way. In many MMOs, there are different roles necessary for doing things like Raids. You've got Tanks, Healers, and DPS.

Only, everyone wants to be DPS, even though the other two are relatively engaging and entertaining. In Elite, even that isn't the case. Often times there are wait lists days or WEEKS long, even with a class that's fun to play. How much worse is it going to be for a class that's essentially a duck in a barrel? Nobody likes escort missions, how much worse is it going to be playing the one being escorted?

This isn't about teamwork. It's about one class being a helpless punching bag while the others do all the fun stuff. If the combat players fail, the hauler dies. If the combat player succeeds, the hauler lives.

At that point, the hauler might as well just be an NPC.

Roles such as close escort would be rare.

Open (in the context of Sandros proposed Open) would:

Make large vessels with lots of cargo much more of a target and a bigger gamble to run. A 100% cargo ship with thing shields (even a Cutter) can be phased and Gromed easily.

FCs would be a fun complication. If a rival knows a transport FC is there (or arrives) the cargo ships are prime targets since they have to run straight to jump out.

Smaller, faster vessels would become the norm, like a Clipper. By having less cargo it makes fortifying take longer, and more trips required. Evasion and HW would be the number one training goal.

Capitals would be hotbeds of activity during an attack due to being the destination of all fortifying, and opportunistic at other times.

'Escort' would really be close support- defenders would fly fast ships like Couriers to intercept any roving attacker allowing transports opportunity to slip past.

Attackers would be the opposite, trying to attack in a very short window before defenders arrive.

Scouting would become vital. Knowing if a place was empty or where rivals are would allow large ships to work.

All powers have profiles on each other- they watch each other and what they do each week, looking for weaknesses. This would become even more important, because from this you can plan when to fortify yourself, and when to anticipate where other powers might be doing theirs.

'Mega' UM sites where attackers continually UM would force the defender to either drive off the attackers directly, or outfortify them (or a mix of both simultaneously). This would lead to a new tactic of 'strike teams' late in the cycle, since you;d have to be patrolling to ward off any late snipe attacks. This would be particularly dangerous, as a power could fortify totally and feel safe, while a rival UMs in the last days / hours of a cycle and can specifically target high CC systems normally out of reach. Defenders would need to scout and be aware of this action.

A defender who has mega UM sites and has to fortify (going to one singular place) is going to need to up its game, as the combination could make them very vulnerable to turmoil.

But saying that, if you are not under attack the day to day travels to distant and remote parts of your territory would not change. You'd have to be on your guard though (which is what should happen now but does not) for random attack, but that again is good, because it means even routine flights have to be taken seriously.