Your Questions Needed - Join the Elite Tutorial Livestream - Everything You Need to Know About Powerplay
- Thread starter Edward Lewis
- Start date
Philip Coutts
Volunteer Moderator
Some very pertinent questions in this thread, for my part looking from the outside, powerplay seems pretty "static" and I would like to see something more dynamic that maybe the casual player can take part in. By casual I mean someone who is playing say 2 - 5 hours a week, which is me! I don't have a huge amount of time to play ED and Powerplay looks to be quite time consuming.
Also as it's Sandro doing the thread, please don't swear! Oh and how is the loach keeping these days?
Also as it's Sandro doing the thread, please don't swear! Oh and how is the loach keeping these days?
Last edited:
Why isn't there some form of control being exerted to direct each power?
This could be, for example, the various Powerplay REddit groups having a section in the Powerplay 'displays' in game where a weekly updated strategy could be posted - or it could be decided by someone with the task of 'being' Zac Hudson etc from FD, or you could even have a player vote every so often to elect a team to do the job....because at the moment it's like a whole bunch of super powers competing with each other without anyone actually being in charge of any of them. This, to me, is a real 'duhh' issue, since when has ANY major power block, in reality, ever been leaderless? Here we've got a whole bunch of them with nobody directing so much as the traffic in the powerbase's mail slot....
Each power could then have a published goal for each of fort/expansion etc that all players could easily see in game, and when Sandro wants to tackle 5c or whatever it would give a set of rules (so to speak) for faction members to follow, making it easy to identify those working against the faction, and therefore easier to target with the nerf of the week.
Why are the Powerplay tools still non-existent? The various lists in game are crying out for the abiltiy to sort and filter them to allow players to do simple tasks like listing the places still needing fortification by distance from base, or by the profit the systems generate, and so forth.
Why don't the PP system lists for fortification reflect the current values when you call them up? I understand there might well be a bit of a delay, or someone might be enroute with a few hundred tons while you are looking at the list, but sometimes you pick a system to fly to because it's several thousand tons short, and when you get there 15 mins later it's oversupplied. The lag in displaying current stock levels etc are lagging way too much.
I'd also repeat everything Martin Schou said.
Dave
This could be, for example, the various Powerplay REddit groups having a section in the Powerplay 'displays' in game where a weekly updated strategy could be posted - or it could be decided by someone with the task of 'being' Zac Hudson etc from FD, or you could even have a player vote every so often to elect a team to do the job....because at the moment it's like a whole bunch of super powers competing with each other without anyone actually being in charge of any of them. This, to me, is a real 'duhh' issue, since when has ANY major power block, in reality, ever been leaderless? Here we've got a whole bunch of them with nobody directing so much as the traffic in the powerbase's mail slot....
Each power could then have a published goal for each of fort/expansion etc that all players could easily see in game, and when Sandro wants to tackle 5c or whatever it would give a set of rules (so to speak) for faction members to follow, making it easy to identify those working against the faction, and therefore easier to target with the nerf of the week.
Why are the Powerplay tools still non-existent? The various lists in game are crying out for the abiltiy to sort and filter them to allow players to do simple tasks like listing the places still needing fortification by distance from base, or by the profit the systems generate, and so forth.
Why don't the PP system lists for fortification reflect the current values when you call them up? I understand there might well be a bit of a delay, or someone might be enroute with a few hundred tons while you are looking at the list, but sometimes you pick a system to fly to because it's several thousand tons short, and when you get there 15 mins later it's oversupplied. The lag in displaying current stock levels etc are lagging way too much.
I'd also repeat everything Martin Schou said.
Dave
What are the plans for freedom fighters mechanic if you can give us details ?
Will we get to know what factions of a system are the ones supporting the power ? for example you enter a system and it says this X faction is the one supporting the power ?
Will we get to know what factions of a system are the ones supporting the power ? for example you enter a system and it says this X faction is the one supporting the power ?
Questions C&P from the Reddit thread:
- Absalom_Taak: "The mechanics of Powerplay often do not many any sense. Why would a volunteer need to pay to receive parcels to distribute? Are there any plans to make participation in Powerplay less immersion breaking?"
- EchelonL490: "What is your opinion on players using expansions as weapons against other powers (weaponized expansions)? Was this something that you predicted to happen during the initial development of Powerplay?"
- Erkle42: "Is there a countdown counter somewhere for those of us in the GMT +-8/9 regions?"
Last edited:
My question is this:
Is there any potential for Powerplay to become a true BGS overlay?
My reason for asking is this:
I realize it is a huge thing to ask, and it will require a great deal of developmental effort, but really think this is the direction Powerplay ought to move in if it is to have a significant future.
To me, Powerplay has always represented the influence a major political leader, and how they choose to govern the populations that fall under that influence. It seems odd that Powerplay is so detached from the Background Simulation, which uses a multitude of factors (including missions, exploration data, trading, bounty hunting, piracy, etc.) to increase or decrease the influence of the minor factions.
In my mind, truly integrating Powerplay into the BGS has the potential to resolve a number of complaints the player base has with Powerplay mechanics, and incentivizes the continued development of the Background Simulation.
Players could still be required to pledge to a specific leader in order to run missions for that leader. "Powerplay leader factions" could then compete for influence against other powers, just like the minor powers. "Merits" could still be earned by completing missions and other tasks for the power to which they are pledged, and faction bonuses can still apply to the individuals who are pledged. Control effects could apply when a power accumulates the majority of influence in a system - just like how a minor faction changes the "laws" of a system. Conflicts between political leaders in certain systems could actually take place, as they did in the community goals prior to Powerplay, instead of simply being a "prep race" or require extensive "undermining." Accepting or abandoning missions would help or harm your reputation with the power, and grant access to more influential missions, or relegate you to menial, low-influence tasks until your reputation recovered.
Things like the dreaded "5th Column" would have no means to harm a power to which they are pledged, since they could only accept missions in support of a power. Annoying things about Powerplay, like the need to purchase unique cargo from a power at an obscenely expensive price to support a power every week would no longer be necessary. Mission rewards could actually replace the salaries Powerplay leaders currently hand out. Overheads? Upkeep? Profit? None of that would matter anymore, or they could be metrics that buff or debuff a power's ability to expand to new systems as the minor factions do. Minor factions would then have an easy inroad to becoming a power, since they would simply join the next "level" of BGS. And that's the tip of the iceberg.
Powerplay, in its current form, is a Sisyphean struggle. It helped bring the community together, but the community itself is currently the primary reward of Powerplay. If Powerplay were integrated into the BGS, I think the benefits of community interaction remain, while also engaging the community in many other aspects of Elite Dangerous. It would give Explorers, Traders, and Combat pilots a means to directly contribute to the powers. It would remove the stress of a weekly treadmill in favor of a longer-term, lower-stress game that everyone can participate in.
Again, I realize this is a pie in the sky wish-list that will require a great deal of time and effort and cost to implement, but I really hope Powerplay will eventually flow in the direction of becoming an actual part of the BGS. Is there any potential for Powerplay to become a true BGS overlay?
Is there any potential for Powerplay to become a true BGS overlay?
My reason for asking is this:
I realize it is a huge thing to ask, and it will require a great deal of developmental effort, but really think this is the direction Powerplay ought to move in if it is to have a significant future.
To me, Powerplay has always represented the influence a major political leader, and how they choose to govern the populations that fall under that influence. It seems odd that Powerplay is so detached from the Background Simulation, which uses a multitude of factors (including missions, exploration data, trading, bounty hunting, piracy, etc.) to increase or decrease the influence of the minor factions.
In my mind, truly integrating Powerplay into the BGS has the potential to resolve a number of complaints the player base has with Powerplay mechanics, and incentivizes the continued development of the Background Simulation.
Players could still be required to pledge to a specific leader in order to run missions for that leader. "Powerplay leader factions" could then compete for influence against other powers, just like the minor powers. "Merits" could still be earned by completing missions and other tasks for the power to which they are pledged, and faction bonuses can still apply to the individuals who are pledged. Control effects could apply when a power accumulates the majority of influence in a system - just like how a minor faction changes the "laws" of a system. Conflicts between political leaders in certain systems could actually take place, as they did in the community goals prior to Powerplay, instead of simply being a "prep race" or require extensive "undermining." Accepting or abandoning missions would help or harm your reputation with the power, and grant access to more influential missions, or relegate you to menial, low-influence tasks until your reputation recovered.
Things like the dreaded "5th Column" would have no means to harm a power to which they are pledged, since they could only accept missions in support of a power. Annoying things about Powerplay, like the need to purchase unique cargo from a power at an obscenely expensive price to support a power every week would no longer be necessary. Mission rewards could actually replace the salaries Powerplay leaders currently hand out. Overheads? Upkeep? Profit? None of that would matter anymore, or they could be metrics that buff or debuff a power's ability to expand to new systems as the minor factions do. Minor factions would then have an easy inroad to becoming a power, since they would simply join the next "level" of BGS. And that's the tip of the iceberg.
Powerplay, in its current form, is a Sisyphean struggle. It helped bring the community together, but the community itself is currently the primary reward of Powerplay. If Powerplay were integrated into the BGS, I think the benefits of community interaction remain, while also engaging the community in many other aspects of Elite Dangerous. It would give Explorers, Traders, and Combat pilots a means to directly contribute to the powers. It would remove the stress of a weekly treadmill in favor of a longer-term, lower-stress game that everyone can participate in.
Again, I realize this is a pie in the sky wish-list that will require a great deal of time and effort and cost to implement, but I really hope Powerplay will eventually flow in the direction of becoming an actual part of the BGS. Is there any potential for Powerplay to become a true BGS overlay?
Why should I care about PowerPlay? What motivations (other than bonuses) do the faction leaders provide? I'm interested in supporting someone who has a vision for the galaxy, relatable motivations, and who provides an engaging story arc for me to follow.
# Support Mac Players
# Support Mac Players
@Corrigendum
It's not "pie in the sky". All they need to do to start this process is add merit gains to normal station missions in control (exploited?) systems. The aligned faction's missions would grant fortification merits. And the non-aligned faction missions would grant undermining merits.
Of course, there are a lot of details that would need to be ironed out, but on the outside it seems like relatively low hanging fruit that could add a whopping ton of variety to PP. And also give minor factions a way to ward off larger powers without being forced to pledge to a power.
It's not "pie in the sky". All they need to do to start this process is add merit gains to normal station missions in control (exploited?) systems. The aligned faction's missions would grant fortification merits. And the non-aligned faction missions would grant undermining merits.
Of course, there are a lot of details that would need to be ironed out, but on the outside it seems like relatively low hanging fruit that could add a whopping ton of variety to PP. And also give minor factions a way to ward off larger powers without being forced to pledge to a power.
Last edited:
I would like to see a summary of the mechanic that governs how gov't type impacts the trigger. We know it should reduce/increase based on gov't type (determined by power) but HOW that is currently being determined is ambiguous.
If specific questions are better:
If specific questions are better:
- Is there a count of systems of a given gov't type in a sphere?
- Is the count used to determine trigger change?
- If so, any chance of telling us the count?
- Does the % of population under a certain gov't type within a sphere impact trigger?
- Is the control system special in any way towards that calculation, or is it equal to other systems in the sphere as it relates to increasing/decreasing trigger based on gov't type?
- Will the change show immediately or after the cycle tick?
Government Types & Fortification Triggers
My questions for Sandro are about Minor Faction government types & Powerplay Fortification Triggers:
My questions for Sandro are about Minor Faction government types & Powerplay Fortification Triggers:
- How exactly does this work? - how are triggers calculated, is it from a simple count of governments in a sphere? Does system Population have any effect? Are Control Systems treated differently?
- Are Fortification Triggers working as intended? - I've noticed some Fortification Triggers are either too high or too low, and don't seem to automatically update as governments flip in a sphere. Is this something that will improve?
- Any plans to further flesh out BGS/PP interplay? - Do you plan on adding to the current interaction between minor factions and the mechanics of Powerplay, perhaps with BGS States having some sort of impact? Would you consider making player impact on the BGS a little bit easier? The current caps on pushing the BGS are quite punitive and don't dovetail well with groups that try to move the BGS for the benefit of their Power.
Hi Sandro,
- When will overheads be clearly shown as having an impact of system profitability? EG: When will a +50cc profit system be updated to show it's really -12cc due to 62cc overhead?
- Why does overhead stop scaling after 55 control systems? The current overhead system does nothing to limit large powers from expanding if they build their main stock of systems and target future expansions that have a profit above the static overhead limit.
- With many powers quickly running out of profitable systems to claim, what is your vision for powerplay going forward? Is every power simply doomed to eventually slip into deficit?
- Further to the above, as many powers now cannot expand their way into a 'surplus' economy, how do you envision powers running a deficit economy recovering?
- Many players see powerplay as a simple means to grind credits - taking the laziest possible option in whatever task they are doing. Is there anything planned to disincentivize this behaviour? Remove credit rewards etc?
- Why does fast-tracking cost the player cash? It's bizarre that you pay an organization to help them move supplies.
- Will we be seeing the powerplay leader bobbleheads any time soon?
Also: Can I has ALD decal?
That one is fairly easy to explain - the Alliance is tiny. At the beginning of PowerPlay there were maybe 250 systems that belonged to the Alliance all told, whereas the Empire and Federation are huge by comparison, each easily encompassing 20 times that or more.
EDDB.io (unreliable, but only large scale sample size we have) currently shows:
375 Alliance systems
5,511 Empire systems
6,522 Federation systems
6,684 Independent systems
This works out to:
1 Alliance power per 375 Alliance systems
1 Empire power per 1,378 Empire systems
1 Federation power per 3,261 Federation systems
1 Independent power per 2,228 Independent systems
Adding more Alliance powers would be strange.
Oh, good. All the best questions have been asked. I'll quote them and emphasize the ones which I feel FDev has yet to address. Many other questions I feel either have been hinted at 'soon' or cannot be addressed until these more crucial questions are answered. (I still have one of my own for the end, too.)
These are all the same question at heart. We are at Cycle 43. We still don't know what Power Play is for. We grind and we grind and all we do is prevent the other power from keeping our head underwater for long enough to drown us.
If Power Play existed solely to keep your player base occupied and involved until you could release 2.1 and fully realize the BGS and Tier 2 NPCs? You've done it. Now, leave us to hope that the fully realised BGS/Mission Board can clear up all our problems with Power Play's confusing, illogical, and broken mechanics.
If Power Play has always been intended to be the Tier 1 NPC overlay for the BGS? Then I hope you fix it soon.
Right now many players are pledged to Player Groups and also to Powers. For others this doesn't hold, as their Player Group either wants to be a Power or wants to stay out of it. If you can marry the BGS and PowerPlay together into a system which directs player action and solidifies storylines, please do that soon. I don't think I want a Power-driven minor faction inserted into every Control System, but I do want the ability for controlling Minor Factions to pledge to a Power (in the case of strong ethos), or for a Power to overwhelm a controlling Minor Faction (in the case of weak ethos matches).
Apos's question takes us to the heart of the matter. We want to use the game mechanics to participate in your storyline. We want to contribute our personal storylines towards the greater patch-work story. Since we don't understand what Power Play mechanics are describing, and different published storylines and refused storylines give us contradictory results, we cannot effectively help you tell your story.
Please help us help you. It is fun.
This is the priority issue which FDev needs to address concerning Power Play.
You mean like this?
Please address this.
Not knowing how it is supposed to work makes it difficult to know when to file bug reports when it isn't working.
The lack of accuracy in the UI display are making good strategic decisions nearly impossible on an individual basis. So, either you have to overpower the uninformed and the apathetic, or you balloon to the point where you can't effectively participate.
And for my personal question:
Are there any plans to leverage the BGS or surplus CC to make 'Contested Systems' a part of gameplay? Or are they forever doomed to be un-representable blackholes of population?
These are all the same question at heart. We are at Cycle 43. We still don't know what Power Play is for. We grind and we grind and all we do is prevent the other
If Power Play existed solely to keep your player base occupied and involved until you could release 2.1 and fully realize the BGS and Tier 2 NPCs? You've done it. Now, leave us to hope that the fully realised BGS/Mission Board can clear up all our problems with Power Play's confusing, illogical, and broken mechanics.
If Power Play has always been intended to be the Tier 1 NPC overlay for the BGS? Then I hope you fix it soon.
Right now many players are pledged to Player Groups and also to Powers. For others this doesn't hold, as their Player Group either wants to be a Power or wants to stay out of it. If you can marry the BGS and PowerPlay together into a system which directs player action and solidifies storylines, please do that soon. I don't think I want a Power-driven minor faction inserted into every Control System, but I do want the ability for controlling Minor Factions to pledge to a Power (in the case of strong ethos), or for a Power to overwhelm a controlling Minor Faction (in the case of weak ethos matches).
Apos's question takes us to the heart of the matter. We want to use the game mechanics to participate in your storyline. We want to contribute our personal storylines towards the greater patch-work story. Since we don't understand what Power Play mechanics are describing, and different published storylines and refused storylines give us contradictory results, we cannot effectively help you tell your story.
Please help us help you. It is fun.
This is the priority issue which FDev needs to address concerning Power Play.
You mean like this?
Please address this.
Not knowing how it is supposed to work makes it difficult to know when to file bug reports when it isn't working.
The lack of accuracy in the UI display are making good strategic decisions nearly impossible on an individual basis. So, either you have to overpower the uninformed and the apathetic, or you balloon to the point where you can't effectively participate.
And for my personal question:
Are there any plans to leverage the BGS or surplus CC to make 'Contested Systems' a part of gameplay? Or are they forever doomed to be un-representable blackholes of population?
Hi !
same as a lot of CMDRs here, I'm wondering if/when you're going to make PP blend in the BGS in a logical way ?
For example, you've decided here that all player owned minor factions "will need to be the same allegiance as the system they are entering". It's a good decision, so can you apply it to PP too ? (influencing the BGS to expand/put a minor faction of the corresponding power allegiance in control of the targeted system should be a part of "preparation" in PP)
same as a lot of CMDRs here, I'm wondering if/when you're going to make PP blend in the BGS in a logical way ?
For example, you've decided here that all player owned minor factions "will need to be the same allegiance as the system they are entering". It's a good decision, so can you apply it to PP too ? (influencing the BGS to expand/put a minor faction of the corresponding power allegiance in control of the targeted system should be a part of "preparation" in PP)
Last time I powerplayed, the factions Home system security was non-existant. I would get interdicted by NPC powers quite often, and no help would be forthcoming from my own power. Surely the home system should be the safest place for you to be in, yet it seems to be the most dangerous. Are there plans to rebalance this (perhaps with additional security patrols from your own power) or is it as intended?
For a behind-the-scenes power struggle for influence, why is a ship's Powerplay allegiance displayed openly? Having allegiance out in the open reduces any scope for bluffing, is she-or-isn't she, or having to interdict and scan suspicious ships. Have you thought about only showing allegiance to ships that are pledged, on the grounds that they have access to a database of opposing powers' supporters?
And this.
And this.
Sandro a question for you on the lifestream, can you explain the mechanic behind this Torval where on place 4 cycle 43, we did only lost 2 expansions,
get a new preparation not in turmoil but we begin cycle 44 on place 8 while we have more systems then Patreus should we not have fall back to place 6.
Please explain wat I fail not to understand in this.
get a new preparation not in turmoil but we begin cycle 44 on place 8 while we have more systems then Patreus should we not have fall back to place 6.
Please explain wat I fail not to understand in this.
Last edited: