FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Discussions about PowerPlay in general
User avatar
Xebeth
Deadly
Deadly
Posts: 4046
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:22 am
CMDR: Xebeth
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby Xebeth » Tue May 15, 2018 7:34 pm

For those who Powerplay, you may want to take a look at this thread over on the FD forum.

Hello Commanders!

As well as having a good old chew on Squadrons, we’re loading up a side order for the Focused Feedback Forum, because, frankly, we want to get more feedback! Importantly, this is an additional topic and does not replace the line-up announced earlier for Squadrons, Mining and Exploration.

We’re considering a package of tweaks to Powerplay and we’d like your thoughts on them. Note that this is not a fait accompli, just something we’re investigating.

The concept behind these changes is not to completely change Powerplay, but address a few important issues as efficiently and nicely as possible. Some of these changes are subtle, others very significant. The idea is that as a whole they form a rounded update that provides improvements to the core experience of Powerplay.

As a flash topic, this will be the only thread, so all relevant replies can live in it. Please use the headings listed below with your replies to make it easier for us to process the thread, and of course, please remember the golden rule: your replies should be to us only. Feel free to debate with each other in non-sticky threads.

What we’re looking for are your thoughts as to the ramifications of these changes based on the way you involve yourself in Powerplay, both positive and negative.

With that in mind:

PowerPlay Proposal

Preparation Cycle Split

• The first half of the cycle is available for preparation
• The second half of the cycle locks the current preparation values and enables voting

Vote to veto preparation

• Each player can vote to veto or support each preparation
• If a preparation ends the cycle with more veto votes than support votes it is removed from preparation
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2

Reasoning: these two changes in tandem are meant to make it easier to prevent bad systems from being prepared with minimal effort. Rather than use consolidation, which must be chosen blind in terms of both the final preparation for systems and the final resting place for the consolidation marker, here Commanders are voting on a fixed list and can choose precisely which systems they want to attempt to veto.

Vote to withdraw from system

• Each cycle players can vote on the 5 least profitable systems, to withdraw or support
• At the end of a cycle if a system has more withdraw votes than support votes it is removed from the power’s control
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2

Reasoning: currently there is no way to lose a bad control system other than hoping or colluding with opposing powers that it will end up being forced into turmoil. We think this vote is a legible and relatively safe way of allowing powers to shed chaff, as only systems that at a base level would be unprofitable would be eligible for withdrawal.

Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes

• A system’s base profitability modifies preparation votes, withdraw votes and preparation successes
• Votes and successes for profitable systems are increased by a factor of 10

Reasoning: we think this modifier acts as another barrier against internal sabotage, forcing the saboteurs to work many more times harder to get the same effect as a Commander who has the power’s interests at heart.

Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification

• A control system that is undermined by 100% more than the fortification value will be undermined even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met

Reasoning: We feel that Powerplay rules tend towards stagnation and status quo, which is not something we intended. Despite all the effort in the world, a power that fortifies enough, against values set by the game rather than in opposition to attack, can remain safe. This change allows sheer force of effort (or numbers) to guarantee systems end up being undermined, making deficit more likely. And to stop this happening, a power must directly compete against its enemies.

Overhead removal and slight increase to distance cost modifier

• Overhead upkeep costs are removed making a system’s base profitability static
• Distance modifier to upkeep is increased to maintain some sense of expansion “gravity”

Reasoning: Overheads are a way to prevent rampant expansion of powers. However, the cost is very high, as they cause an unavoidable amount of uncertainty when calculating CC at the cycle change, as well as just being another level of complexity. We think it would be better to remove them, increase the distance modifier to upkeep a bit, and live with powers that can expand more, as with the other changes in this package we hope that the result will be much more direct attack and dynamism caused by powers fighting each other.

Ethos Override

• Ethos is only checked for the control system and the power
• If the power and controlling faction share the same superpower the power is always strong against the faction

Reasoning: this is a fairly straight forward override to ensure that – for example – Federal powers are always strong against federal factions. The other part of this change, to focus ethos on the control system only, is to make the process legible and focus Commanders in the same place, increasing the chance of conflict.

Missions give Powerplay successes

• Missions for factions in a system that share a power’s superpower award a number of Powerplay successes when completed
• The mission type determines how many successes are given
• Successes can be applied to expansion, opposition, fortification and undermining

Reasoning: one of the complaints of Powerplay is the limited actions available to support your power. We think that liking, in a very simple manner, missions for aligned factions and Powerplay successes allows Commanders increased variety in an efficient manner. The idea is not to replace the standard Powerplay activities, but to compliment them.

Open only

• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups

Reasoning: We’ve saved the biggest change for last, as making Powerplay Open only goes way beyond the remit of a tweak. We’ve seen this topic discussed many times and we think it’s time we addressed it directly to get as much quality feedback as possible.

Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.
Image
Please make sure you have read the Mobius GroupPolicy

User avatar
Edddelos
Competent
Competent
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:24 pm
CMDR: Edddelos
CMDR_Platform: PlayStation
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby Edddelos » Tue May 15, 2018 8:00 pm

Xebeth wrote:For those who Powerplay, you may want to take a look at this thread over on the FD forum.

Hello Commanders!

Open only

• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups

Reasoning: We’ve saved the biggest change for last, as making Powerplay Open only goes way beyond the remit of a tweak. We’ve seen this topic discussed many times and we think it’s time we addressed it directly to get as much quality feedback as possible.

Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.



Hmm, just as I start getting into powerplay.

I do believe they may actually consider removing private groups eventually.
Image

TorTorden
Dangerous
Dangerous
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:13 am
CMDR: TorTorden
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby TorTorden » Tue May 15, 2018 9:39 pm

Pvpers has been harping and crooing about removing private groups and solo since before I started in 2015.

FD has been ignoring them since.

Last ditch effort. from a minute subgroup of players.

This suggestion serves no purpose past forcing PP players in non PvP trade ships to be exposed to their PvP traps.

Let me guess. Someone used the argument "Its called elite dangerous, not elite huggie bear".
Image

Hey I'm Thor -
People call me Bob.

Rule 1: Pillage. Then burn.
Rule 2: No such thing as overkill, as long as there are reloads.

TorTorden
Dangerous
Dangerous
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:13 am
CMDR: TorTorden
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby TorTorden » Tue May 15, 2018 10:11 pm

Oh. It's a sandro thing.

Think PP is like his pet or something.
Problem is it was gimping out of the gate and has been pretty dead for a few years.
They are desperate to keep it in.
Image

Hey I'm Thor -
People call me Bob.

Rule 1: Pillage. Then burn.
Rule 2: No such thing as overkill, as long as there are reloads.

User avatar
CMDR Abil Midena
Expert
Expert
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 7:00 pm
CMDR: Abil Midena
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby CMDR Abil Midena » Wed May 16, 2018 12:37 am

Open only for PP *IS* going to happen.

There are many "new accounts" posting in that thread supporting it. I have no doubt many of those are alt accounts from the pew pew crowd meant to inflate the number of people that support it.

Also, it is titled as a Power Play topic, so mostly PP people see/reply, and gee, what do you guess they think? I am surprised there are *any* people opposing that, but there are a few.

Sandro has tried this before ( see here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthrea ... 7822-(info)-First-bonus-for-playing-in-OPEN-under-consideration-for-PP ), but did not enact it. However, we're in the "beyond" period, where they are focused on changing existing aspects of the game this time. And now is the perfect time to make changes.

So yeah, that's happening. Accept it now.
------------------

Also, some seem to believe that the next step will NOT be making BGS efforts Open Only. Even Sandro claims "For clarity: Open only is being considered for Powerplay. Not anything else. "

However, MB stated "From the initial inception of the game we have considered all play modes are equally valid choices. While we are aware that some players disagree, this hasn't changed for us."

- Michael

source: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post2581431

But now for the second time (first time here shown above) we're going to make Solo/PG an invalid choice. So please recognize they no longer believe/think that.

Therefore, if you really believe Sandro, I have a bridge to sell you for cheap.
My Youtube Channel
Elite - Elite - Elite

User avatar
Falcon_D
Master
Master
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:30 am
CMDR: Falcon Darkstar
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby Falcon_D » Wed May 16, 2018 2:08 am

The other aspect that I’m not too keen about is the “Missions give Powerplay Success” bit.
This is going to affect the BGS factions as PP commanders flip systems to support their Power so that they can increase merit gain by running missions that affect the BGS.
Image

Phillipus
Expert
Expert
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:51 am
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby Phillipus » Wed May 16, 2018 6:23 am

There's about 6 or 7 ignoramus shit-heads on the official forums who constantly whine and shout about everything having to be in Open who, it seems, Sammarco has caved into. Pity.

Also, it's the thin edge of the wedge, because now these same shit-heads will constantly whine and shout about how if PP is Open only, so should the BGS and CGs. Sadly, Sammarco might cave into these idiots again.

I don't do PP, but if I did, and it became Open only, I would make adjustments to my router to block other players.

My personal perference would be to remove PP from the game completely (as well as CQC) as it's just moronic.

"All modes are equal". Right....
Last edited by Phillipus on Wed May 16, 2018 7:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Phillipus
Expert
Expert
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:51 am
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby Phillipus » Wed May 16, 2018 6:51 am

Actually, on second thoughts, moving PP to Open only may be a good idea...if FD removes every trace of PP from Solo/PG. Remove PP NPCs, the PP map, PP Galnet articles, every trace, remnant and reference to those stupid cartoon figures. Then do the same for CQC (the progress bar).

TorTorden
Dangerous
Dangerous
Posts: 3757
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 11:13 am
CMDR: TorTorden
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby TorTorden » Wed May 16, 2018 7:15 am

Phillipus wrote:Actually, on second thoughts, moving PP to Open only may be a good idea...if FD removes every trace of PP from Solo/PG. Remove PP NPCs, the PP map, PP Galnet articles, every trace, remnant and reference to those stupid cartoon figures. Then do the same for CQC (the progress bar).


Yes.

Personally, to fix Elite is a single step procedure.

Fire Sandro.
End of change.
Image

Hey I'm Thor -
People call me Bob.

Rule 1: Pillage. Then burn.
Rule 2: No such thing as overkill, as long as there are reloads.

Phillipus
Expert
Expert
Posts: 326
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:51 am
CMDR_Platform: None Specified
Contact:

Re: FLASH TOPIC: Powerplay Proposal

Postby Phillipus » Wed May 16, 2018 9:15 am

Thinking about this PP in Open only thing a bit more....

It wouldn't surprise me if this is a ploy to soften the blow of the actual aim - to offer rewards and incentives for doing PP in Open, which Sammarco was mulling over some time ago. Knowing that this would be controversial, then all FD need do is propose a really controversial proposal (PP in Open only) then, when the shouting has reached its peak, deliver the "lesser" proposal and Solo/PG crowd will give it their blessing. Politicians use this ploy all the time.


Return to “PowerPlay Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

i