Rubbernuke.exe has stopped working

[Rubbernuke]

To expand upon what @Rubbernuke is saying, currently there's a teeny tiny chance I might be interdicted in Open if I want to make a fortification run in an iCutter between Cubeo and, say, Runapa. Because of this, I might equip my ship in such a way that it'll take two extra jumps to get there, and I also might bring along 8% less cargo, compared to what I might do in Solo.

This could result in an astonishing 16% fewer fortification cargo units being delivered per hour. Which, in this case, amounts to an extra 15 minutes to fully fortify that particular system. Mostly thanks to needing to make ten runs, irregardless of cargo capacity. Keep in mind, this system is one of the worst to fortify that I know of for Aisling Duval, being both distant from Cubeo and a relatively long Supercruise run.

Or, given that this is version 1 we're talking about, I could simply trust my own skills, and how unlikely the matchmaking system is going to instance me with a hostile player, and simply do the run in Open the same way I'd do run the run in Solo, and get the same results. Especially since it would take about six players doing nothing but flying opposition for nearly three hours to maximize the chance of intercepting me. And that chance is drastically lower if I play outside of my local prime time.

And since I'm pledged for an outbound fortification power, at the beginning of the cycle, they'd also have to cover 72 other systems, each with several stations between them.

Which is why Rubbernuke is advocating for having NPCs provide opposition towards fortification instead of players.

Fortification is one aspect to this- much more so for an inbound power (where the capital is a bottleneck) but in the rare times a power preps or expands you have situations where you know pledges will be- as the cycle goes on and the inevitable rush at the end.

This was why Sandro wanted unlocked UM and fortification, in that you could keep pressure on a system and people would have to defend it- unlike now where (unless maths is at work) once a place is fortified that effort is wasted.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hauling with the chance of piracy isn't pure PvP. If you have hauling then its a PvE activity that can become PvP, but its still a PvE activity, and that isn't what i'm talking about when i say it needs to be a PvP activity - that is, kills against opposing players are the only thing that matters.

If you can haul to win, then its PvE, so it is possible to do in any mode, therefore should be doable in any mode.

As others have pointed out- V1 was about what happens while you are in transit. Currently with NPC persistence its impossible to really get anything happen to you or have an illusion of some co-ordinated resistance. Its why I describe PP V1 as paper thin PvE because thats what it is- fortifying is essentially an open ended bubble wide wing cargo mission where something might happen- in solo and PG this is 2015 era NPCs (i.e. pointless). On top of that you have an open ended 1.X bgs cz and / or open ended bounty hunting like kill missions.

In this context its not the killing that counts, its what you slow down or prevent. Expansions have been lost when merit holders were destroyed, fortification (and turmoil) ruined by the same.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I haven't read his proposal on this, but how could NPCs actually do anything since everything is instance dependent? If you're not in an instance there are no NPCs to do anything. Or its about NPCs spawning when players are there?

Its easy because you are going from PP now which is largely multi system point to point flight which is unsuitable for instancing to (what I guess) is local in system activity.

In essence you are going from bubble wide travel to hyper local where all activity is largely in system (like BGS missions). In this way instancing is not a problem as you are not trying to do something NPCs are crap at. It opens up using POIs, missions etc too.

At a basic level its moving away from merits which need to be moved to having INF like expansion where any activity can be used, and that NPCs can be priced in. As an example you could have a high INF PP asasination themed mission where your target is a G5 Cutter- the reward (money, INF) is automatically balanced, is undermining and so on.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

As others have pointed out- V1 was about what happens while you are in transit. Currently with NPC persistence its impossible to really get anything happen to you or have an illusion of some co-ordinated resistance. Its why I describe PP V1 as paper thin PvE because thats what it is- fortifying is essentially an open ended bubble wide wing cargo mission where something might happen- in solo and PG this is 2015 era NPCs (i.e. pointless). On top of that you have an open ended 1.X bgs cz and / or open ended bounty hunting like kill missions.

In this context its not the killing that counts, its what you slow down or prevent. Expansions have been lost when merit holders were destroyed, fortification (and turmoil) ruined by the same.

Fair enough, but we have no idea what V2 will be, how it will work, so we can only discuss things in generalities and offer ideas.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Its easy because you are going from PP now which is largely multi system point to point flight which is unsuitable for instancing to (what I guess) is local in system activity.

In essence you are going from bubble wide travel to hyper local where all activity is largely in system (like BGS missions). In this way instancing is not a problem as you are not trying to do something NPCs are crap at. It opens up using POIs, missions etc too.

At a basic level its moving away from merits which need to be moved to having INF like expansion where any activity can be used, and that NPCs can be priced in. As an example you could have a high INF PP asasination themed mission where your target is a G5 Cutter- the reward (money, INF) is automatically balanced, is undermining and so on.

Sorry, can you point me to your proposal on this topic which explains how you think it should work so I can digest it?

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sorry, can you point me to your proposal on this topic which explains how you think it should work so I can digest it?

At this moment 'what I propose' is an educated guess which is an evolution of what I've suggested in the past (in threads I've lost track of). In short V2 (I'm guessing) is BGS based and powers behave like enhanced factions. I'm taking how the BGS works and extrapolating.

If FD do this its 5C proof, builds on years of BGS improvements and is decentralised enough so that any and all expansion 'is good'. It also comes with ready made difficulty levels and varied PvE.

 

[Darkfyre99]

At this moment 'what I propose' is an educated guess which is an evolution of what I've suggested in the past (in threads I've lost track of). In short V2 (I'm guessing) is BGS based and powers behave like enhanced factions. I'm taking how the BGS works and extrapolating.

If FD do this its 5C proof, builds on years of BGS improvements and is decentralised enough so that any and all expansion 'is good'. It also comes with ready made difficulty levels and varied PvE.

^^^
This is what I'm hoping for.

But this is Frontier we're talking about. I'm expecting that whatever improvements are added to PowerPlay will be on top of the existing framework, flaws and all. But I'd be delighted to be wrong.

 

[varonica]

^^^
This is what I'm hoping for.

But this is Frontier we're talking about. I'm expecting that whatever improvements are added to PowerPlay will be on top of the existing framework, flaws and all. But I'd be delighted to be wrong.

I am expecting something like this, with all the commensurate complaining to follow;

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6XabE95wZA

 

[Rebel Yell]

Decentralisation means also that there shall be way less "weight" on powerplay coordinators, given that now we have to deal with several teams from hauling and BGS to PvP and undermining, plus the need to maintain relationships with tons of PMFs... and to keep track of all that's relevant for the power from external resources.

Of course I'd expect that main powerplay groups (i.e. like KUMO for Delaine, Guardians of Harmony for Antal, etc.) will continue to represent a reference point for the players who are looking to be part of a more organised framework, but anything that will deviate from the main plan does not represent a menace anymore.

Bottom line = less pain for the main groups.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Decentralisation means also that there shall be way less "weight" on powerplay coordinators, given that now we have to deal with several teams from hauling and BGS to PvP and undermining, plus the need to maintain relationships with tons of PMFs... and to keep track of all that's relevant for the power from external resources.

Of course I'd expect that main powerplay groups (i.e. like KUMO for Delaine, Guardians of Harmony for Antal, etc.) will continue to represent a reference point for the players who are looking to be part of a more organised framework, but anything that will deviate from the main plan does not represent a menace anymore.

Bottom line = less pain for the main groups.

If (if!) its BGS based it also means the crazy people who want to expand in a specific place can do so without the current facepalm screaming from co-coordinators thinking about the CC.

My only concerns:

PvE: PP missions and flavour have to be distinct from 'regular' faction missions

Reward balance

Transition from V1 > V2...if V2 is indeed BGS I guess power bubbles will go and collapsed down to its current control system (and act as a hub to expand from)

Making small powers viable (and not just keeping the status quo)

 

[Rebel Yell]

If (if!) its BGS based it also means the crazy people who want to expand in a specific place can do so without the current facepalm screaming from co-coordinators thinking about the CC.

My only concerns:

PvE: PP missions and flavour have to be distinct from 'regular' faction missions

May be a similar flavour but targeting powerplay effects (i.e. a very simple thing like ship massacres = undermining, hauling = support the power etc).

Reward balance

Transition from V1 > V2...if V2 is indeed BGS I guess power bubbles will go and collapsed down to its current control system (and act as a hub to expand from)

Making small powers viable (and not just keeping the status quo)

Powerplay bubbles collapsing may happen... sure, that will be damaging most the big ones and conglomerates, but ofc it may pave the way to a resurgence not only of small powers but also for the puppet ones. Numbers will be a thing, again... and let's not forget about the modules.

 

[bangermsuk]

will the PP rewards be kumo burgers instead of credits

 

[Agony_Aunt]

At this moment 'what I propose' is an educated guess which is an evolution of what I've suggested in the past (in threads I've lost track of). In short V2 (I'm guessing) is BGS based and powers behave like enhanced factions. I'm taking how the BGS works and extrapolating.

If FD do this its 5C proof, builds on years of BGS improvements and is decentralised enough so that any and all expansion 'is good'. It also comes with ready made difficulty levels and varied PvE.

I'm also hoping for it being faction based or faction like. I don't think it would 5C proof, but it would mitigate it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

PvE: PP missions and flavour have to be distinct from 'regular' faction missions

One of my early hopes for PP was for the powers to have different flavours through their activities. Like Torval could have been the mining faction, where people who love mining flock to and its mining missions that get them the most gain.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'm also hoping for it being faction based or faction like. I don't think it would 5C proof, but it would mitigate it.

How so? Currently the reason 5C works is because expansions have value- so that 'good' expansions are profitable while bad expansions cost lots of CC- its this latter aspect that is the problem. In a BGS context no expansion is bad because it does not have a value attached to it- every expansion is just an expansion.

 

[Jmanis]

I'm also hoping for it being faction based or faction like. I don't think it would 5C proof, but it would mitigate it.

As it stands... factions currently are 5C-proof right? I don't think there's necessarily a "bad" expansion of capture... sure capturing things like non- dockable facilities is not great, but it has advantages too.... I'd argue at least a net neutral.

Now, if you're talking about trying to specifically capture a specific system with some crazy synchronising or chronology aspects to it, or avoid capturing/entering an allied system in breach of some agreement, yeah 5C would work, but that's purely player-invented, and the reality is there's no way the game can control that.

tl;dr factions expanding/taking over facilities is just that, part of the BGS machinations (and any player machinations which assume control of a faction is foolhardy)

EDIT: Ninja'ed

 

[Agony_Aunt]

How so? Currently the reason 5C works is because expansions have value- so that 'good' expansions are profitable while bad expansions cost lots of CC- its this latter aspect that is the problem. In a BGS context no expansion is bad because it does not have a value attached to it- every expansion is just an expansion.

It depends on exactly how things work, but its always going to be possible to join a side and then screw its efforts up in some way.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

As it stands... factions currently are 5C-proof right?

Only in the sense that you can't actually join a faction.

Now, if groups don't talk, every player who supports a faction works in isolation, then yeah, pretty 5C proof. But if players coordinate, then someone can join their group, listen into what they are planning, then work to undermine their efforts.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It depends on exactly how things work, but its always going to be possible to join a side and then screw its efforts up in some way.

Indeed we will have to see how PP V2 works- but lets define what is 'bad' here: a BGS expansion is not bad because if it happens its down to player effort, its decentralised enough not to effect other expansions and that those pushing it have to do it 'legally'- i.e. play the game.

If you are trying to kick someone out (beyond using semi dodgy methods) most approaches are self limiting and require hostile intent but also legit play- totally unlike PP where to really smack a power you pledge to that power, expand somewhere silly and fortify that power (to screw up any turmoil order).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Indeed we will have to see how PP V2 works

Basically.