The Powerplay discussion thread.

[Araviel]

Again, it depends what you are trying to achieve. I suspect that Open feels so "lacking" for many players is that they only see the PCs. They will turn a blind eye to all of the actual dynamic content because it's "only" NPCs. If the difference was removed/hidden I have a feeling that they would suddenly see a much more dynamic galaxy. And if not, then do we only need more NPCs?

But do we? It's a big old universe after all, how busy should systems be to balance a "realistic" and a "fun" experience?

I see another problem to.
I worked on the epoch mod for arma 2 where i made a A.I script that made the A.I go into players bases and steal all their gear and vehicles if they didn't guard it,
the problem whit that was that i also got all the blame when a player would do the same.
so imagine all the flak Sarah would get if she coded some a.i that would fly around and do all the nasty things players could do and people could not tell the difference.

 

[Robert Maynard]

so imagine all the flak Sarah would get if she coded some a.i that would fly around and do all the nasty things players could do and people could not tell the difference.

NPCs are serial interdicting and following low-wakes (and the occasional high-wake) now - I expect that they will learn new tricks as SJA weaves her magic.... If no-one at all is complaining about NPC difficulty then they are too easy. To say that players might not be able to tell the difference would, I expect, be quite the compliment!

 

[Araviel]

NPCs are serial interdicting and following low-wakes (and the occasional high-wake) now - I expect that they will learn new tricks as SJA weaves her magic.... If no-one at all is complaining about NPC difficulty then they are too easy. To say that players might not be able to tell the difference would, I expect, be quite the compliment!

yes we love it and praise her, especially me, but i really think it would be another story if all ships on the radar looked like hollow squares instead of both hollow and filled like we have now.

 

[SteveLaw]

I see another problem to.
I worked on the epoch mod for arma 2 where i made a A.I script that made the A.I go into players bases and steal all their gear and vehicles if they didn't guard it,
the problem whit that was that i also got all the blame when a player would do the same.
so imagine all the flak Sarah would get if she coded some a.i that would fly around and do all the nasty things players could do and people could not tell the difference.

If you want to encourage more players because they do things the NPCs don't do why would you complain if the NPCs do them? What's the difference between PCs and NPCs if they behave the same?

 

[Ikari]

Why not have the powers cover the players insurance costs in open. This would not create a risk free environment as some think it would but, this is how most games tackle getting those players who don't want to lose everything.

I know some PVP players like the insurance mechanic but unfortunately it is that what is stopping most people taking part in PP in open, the insurance cost are very high for the larger traders and really Solo/ Group is not hiding but using common sense, why would you risk everything when you don't have to?

I know what I've put is a bit of a thorny subject but I can't see a better way of encouraging players into open to play PP.

 

[Araviel]

If you want to encourage more players because they do things the NPCs don't do why would you complain if the NPCs do them? What's the difference between PCs and NPCs if they behave the same?

because from my experience players always blames the game first when things go bad for them, and only blame the players if they have proof. -dated - - -

Why not have the powers cover the players insurance costs in open. This would not create a risk free environment as some think it would but, this is how most games tackle getting those players who don't want to lose everything.

I know some PVP players like the insurance mechanic but unfortunately it is that what is stopping most people taking part in PP in open, the insurance cost are very high for the larger traders and really Solo/ Group is not hiding but using common sense, why would you risk everything when you don't have to?

I know what I've put is a bit of a thorny subject but I can't see a better way of encouraging players into open to play PP.

if insurance was removed would that not make large ships rather OP and everyone would pvp whit condas?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why not have the powers cover the players insurance costs in open. This would not create a risk free environment as some think it would but, this is how most games tackle getting those players who don't want to lose everything.

If the Powers were to cover all players insurance costs then PvP would, I expect, increase as there would be no penalty (other than lost cargo, bounty vouchers, exploration data, etc. that are lost on ship destruction). Increased occurrence of PvP with no insurance penalty might well simply become an annoyance to some - an annoyance that is avoidable by not playing in Open.

 

[Ikari]

If the Powers were to cover all players insurance costs then PvP would, I expect, increase as there would be no penalty (other than lost cargo, bounty vouchers, exploration data, etc. that are lost on ship destruction). Increased occurrence of PvP with no insurance penalty might well simply become an annoyance to some - an annoyance that is avoidable by not playing in Open.

I get that, but I feel it may encourage more to take the leap with less of a sting in the tail. You are always going to have players who prefer to play alone. I just got to thinking that the powers paying for insurance solution would be better/less immersion breaking than say added rewards or a PVP flag. However that is just my opinion.

 

[Mephane]

I don't have any particular ideas* to contribute right now, but a rather general thought to be considered:

Any attempt to encourage someone to go into Open Play, who would rather have preferred Solo or Private Group anyway regardless of any risk/reward mechanics, will just shift the current feeling of frustration onto them. At the moment, those who want to play in Open Play but feel discouraged because they can reach better ratios of credit/hour, merits/hour, CG-contribution/hour, in Solo are rightfully frustrated. Most ideas to alleviate it simply shift that very frustration onto those who would prefer not to participate in Open Play regardless.

Fundamentally, what we want, or should want, is for everyone to pick the game mode they prefer for the sole reason that they prefer the principle workings of this mode: meet all kinds of players: Open Play; meet only select people of a specific mindset: Private Group; play it as a single-player game: Solo. We have now people who pick a mode they rather would not but feel the game mechanics or rewards push them into it, from their Open Play to Solo; plus lots of players in Open Play who are frustrated but do not switch to Solo; and players in Open Play who couldn't care less about such considerations.
If you simply reverse that situation, you will find players who would prefer Solo, but switch to Open because the new game mechanics or rewards make them feel like they miss out or suffer from (relatively) reduced rewards etc; you will find players who stay in their preferred Solo more but are disgruntled that they get lesser rewards just because they prefer a different play style; and you will find players who have been playing in Solo all along and don't care whether their rewards could be better in a different mode.

In each scenario, the status quo as well as the reversed status quo I just outlined, the third type of player is irrelevant for our considerations, and what we are left with is possibly trading the frustration of one type of player for the frustration of a different type of player.

I hereby claim that some who have been asking for higher rewards in Open Play either did not consider this yet, or are being rather selfish to simply wish someone else shall suffer that same frustration instead; plus a third group who is under the illusion that any form of "higher reward in Open Play" solution can be balanced in such a way that the frustration vanishes entirely. The best you could hope is a 50:50 split between frustrated people preferring Open Play but still feeling discouraged from it, and frustrated people preferring Solo mode but feeling discouraged from it, too.


*That said, I wish to throw an idea into the ring which I have mentioned before, very early on, and would like to be reconsidered: to minimize the risk of loss from encounters with other players. That could mean, for example, a greatly discounted (90%) rebuy cost when killed by other players, all cargo not jettisoned manually or through hatch breakers insured (at the same discounted rate) as well, and no w&t effect from interdictions by other players. Plus, bounty vouchers, combat bonds, exploration data, missions etc. should not be lost or failed when being killed by another player.
It'd still be some loss, and always some loss of time, but if we could get away from the prospect of devastating losses from PvP, the (justified) fear of losing hours of gameplay effects in a single random encounter (especially when it is not justified or mandated directly by the gameplay, e.g. one power vs a hostile power), then many more players would be willing to take that very risk.
It is for this very reason that in most MMOs, against other players the regular penalty for dying (e.g. money loss) does not apply at all, and even regular equipment wear&tear mechanics are often exempt from any actions done by other players. If, for example, in WoW an opposing faction player kills you anywhere, you have to respawn the same way as if an NPC killed you, but you suffer no loss of money and thus, the most overall effect any other player have on you, is to temporarily hinder you from something (e.g. reaching a location) or slow you down in your quest, but they could never reset you back to an earlier state of less money, equipment, etc.
In terms of the idea of rebalancing risk/reward scenarions on Open Play, such a change would reduce the risk side of the equation, but leaving the reward side untouched. Therefore, a player in Solo mode and a player in Open Play mode reap the same rewards for the same actions, but the extra possibility of hostile player encounters is mostly mitigated to keep things somewhat even.

 

[Cid]

Any incentive to play in Open would seem to be wasted on those who already play there - they are there already, after all.

Any reward/incentive will in some way affect everyone in Open, to be fair i think people who are already playing in Open should be 'rewarded' also.
I'm not sure lowering the risk involved in player combat is the right route - Increasing the risk/reward for Trade and Exploration would be a good option, we already have the added risk of other players so increasing their rewards is the simple answer.

It just needs to be done in an elegant fashion that doesn't add any additional complexity to already complex gameplay element, I honestly think just changing the amount of merits received anywhere (Crime sweeps, undermining, trade agreements etc) by X% is the way to go, if the player logs into a solo or private group instance without claiming them they revert back to normal amounts, to prevent loading up in a quiet system and going Solo to cart them across the galaxy.

For the record i typically play Solo, I'd like to play Open but i don't play for more than an hour or two at once and don't like the idea of being griefed.. I would say i was the target audience for whatever is proposed.
Telling me i wont be penalised for being killed in Open wouldnt make me move there, telling me i could make more merits/points for my faction, but with the increased risk of player interdictions etc would definitely give me a choice to think about.
As we all know; difficult choices are the hallmark of good game design, currently its not a difficult choice for many in whether to play Open or not.

 

[JeffRyan]

These are both typical example of how some people misunderstand how Powerplay is supposed to work: you don't oppose players supporting other powers by shooting them, you do that by fulfilling the opposing missions for your power. Players are undermining a control system? Do the corresponding fortifying missions! That's what they are for!!

I play Power Play and I understand it quite well thank you. All I mean is that the same action I take on an NPC doesn't have the same effect when I engage a player doing exactly the same activities.

 

[Janichsan]

"fortified control system". Read the text you quote before commenting on misunderstanding powerplay.

I read that and stand with what I said. SteveLaw already explained why:

Edit: Yes it does. But without the Fortify it would cost twice as much upkeep. That's how the strategy in Power Play works. The game was designed with moves and counter moves. You don't get a free pass to do what you want.

 

[SteveLaw]

We've done this before, and again very clearly my text says "undermining a fortified control system". But to go through it step by step:

• I have a fortified control system. I have put time and effort in to fortifying said system. My upkeep for this system in the next cycle will be 0
• Another power wants to undermine said system. If they manage this then the end state for the system will be neutral and my upkeep for the next cycle will be 25CC (or whatever)
• There is no way to attempt to stop the other power for taking away the CC I have put time and effort in to obtaining for my power.

But you have. You have stopped them from making the system cost 50CC. You've saved 25CC. You seem to want to play a single player game where your input is the only thing affecting the game.

 

[Araviel]

Why not have the powers cover the players insurance costs in open. This would not create a risk free environment as some think it would but, this is how most games tackle getting those players who don't want to lose everything.

I know some PVP players like the insurance mechanic but unfortunately it is that what is stopping most people taking part in PP in open, the insurance cost are very high for the larger traders and really Solo/ Group is not hiding but using common sense, why would you risk everything when you don't have to?

I know what I've put is a bit of a thorny subject but I can't see a better way of encouraging players into open to play PP.

ok i already made an answer to your post, but i think you might have found something vital so you are deserving of another quote

i also think the insurance is a big problem that is holding people back.

but one thing about PP is that you don't need a large ship to do it, in fact i think the smaller ships are rather perfect for PP
at most you need 25t in cargo space to freight propaganda and such thing, i think thats the same for all power.
and the smaller ships are much better at avoiding and getting away from PP interdiction.
ships like Vipers, Vultures and diamondbacks really shine, and the insurance cost is what i consider cheap and next to nothing.

perhaps if we want to entice more play in open we should shed some more awareness of this and try and make people understand how good the small and cheap ships really are for PP
its one thing we can do whitout having any Developers involved or introduce any "bribes" or nerfs or whatever.

 

[Robert Maynard]

but one thing about PP is that you don't need a large ship to do it, in fact i think the smaller ships are rather perfect for PP
at most you need 25t in cargo space to freight propaganda and such thing, i think thats the same for all power.
and the smaller ships are much better at avoiding and getting away from PP interdiction.
ships like Vipers, Vultures and diamondbacks really shine, and the insurance cost is what i consider cheap and next to nothing.

perhaps if we want to entice more play in open we should shed some more awareness of this and try and make people understand how good the small and cheap ships are.
its one thing we can do whitout having any Developers involved or introduce any "bribes" or nerfs or whatever.

Good point - my Asp insurance excess is about a third of that of my Python.

 

[Insomnia]

Why is there a need to encourage players to play open? If there's a solo mode and people want to use it then they should be encouraged to use that.
If Powerplay is meant for open, then there is something very wrong with the design in the first place.

 

[jgm]

I read that and stand with what I said. SteveLaw already explained why:

I ignored Steve a while back when he continued to argue about powerplay without bothering to understand how it worked, and the quote you posted staying that it would cost twice as much upkeep without fortify is another example of this.

I'm not interested in a free pass, I'm interested in a particular aspect of Powerplay where there is no way to counter the counter, if you will. To give another example: let's say that my power has hit the triggers to prepare system A, expand in to system B and fortify system C for the next cycle. Then another power comes along and decides to ruin our day. What can I do?

I can pour more preparation in to system A to ensure that we have a higher preparation total than the opposing power.

I can carry out more expansion activities for system B to beat the opposing power's opposition %.

But there is nothing I can do to maintain system C's fortification state. I can't (usefully) fortify it further and I can't stop the opposition from carrying out their undermining activity and reverting it to neutral.

 

[SteveLaw]

I ignored Steve a while back when he continued to argue about powerplay without bothering to understand how it worked

I know how it works. You want it to work differently.

Fortify/Undermine works differently to Expansion/Preparation. A control system can be in three states. Fortified, Neutral or Undermined. If you only Fortify it, it costs nothing. If you only Undermine it, it costs double. If you do neither, or you do both, it costs it's normal costs.
That's how it works. That's how it's designed to work. That's how it would work if everyone was in Open, everyone was in Solo or players are in all modes.

You don't like that and want it to work differently.

 

[Whiterose]

But there is nothing I can do to maintain system C's fortification state. I can't (usefully) fortify it further and I can't stop the opposition from carrying out their undermining activity and reverting it to neutral.

Once the fortification of system C is at 100% it doesnt matter how much opposition there is everything is cancelled out.

 

[jgm]

Once the fortification of system C is at 100% it doesnt matter how much opposition there is everything is cancelled out.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If fortification is at 100% and undermining is at 0 then it makes a difference where the undermining number ends up at the end of the cycle.