... Worse still, you can use the fear induced by ganking to do it.
Elite Dangerous | Powerplay 2.0 Questions and Answers
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
That said, it is'Powerplay' so perhaps that's just the game, anyhow I think that suggesting that open is handicapped and thus should get MOAR POWER!!! is ludicrous.
I can almost hear 4 guitars a bass an organ plus drums and percussion warming up.
There will never be checkout unless there is at least some attempt to balance things- OO was the best answer for a troubled feature in V1... for V2 its different, FD need to at least make a nod towards how each mode acts in Powerplay and subtly adjust things accordingly. It need not be massive, just small tweaks.
Much much worse, PMF are going to receive a zero tolerance in PP 2.0 from all Powers.
PMF in Powerplay territories will have to select one of the following:
1) pledge to the Power holding its territory (or the majority of it)
2) stay neutral
Again, that's why all players caught in open and belonging to a different pledge are going to be engaged and eliminated.
I don't think that's automatic.
The same could in theory apply to the BGS - there's no guarantee that passing traffic is going to be helpful to your influence levels - but most PMFs don't go around shooting down any unrecognised ship in their claimed space.
We'll have to see just how much chaos someone not trying to knock over a system but happening to be pledged to an opposed power can actually cause.
What Rebel Yell means is that if for example, your PMF is in ALD territory, if you're pledged to any faction apart from hers, you're likely to get attacked by another player, as the UI identifies you quite clearly as being involved with a rival power, and your actions have the potential of hurting ALDs influence in that system.
Last edited:
Yes, I got that.
But...
- the same applies to PP1, you can't tell if a pledge to another Power has any merits worth killing them over there, but most pledges don't go about attacking other pledges just for existing (yes, it's valid to do so, but it's not universal)
- on a diplomatic level, it might be better to accept a PMF with a mix of pledged supporters (and just compensate for the "passing traffic" losses some other way, if they're not deliberately trying to flip the system) rather than antagonise them and encourage them to make sure their territory does not overlap with ALD territory any more.
- the Power's supporters possibly get an incentive to attack the PMF's supporters (because they're also acting for an enemy Power), but that's not the same as the Power's supporters having an incentive to attack the PMF itself to change system control - something like the "Deliver Exploration Data" in the above screenshot would strengthen both the controlling Power and the controlling PMF if carried out by a supporter of that Power, for example.
If this pans out, it could be quite "interesting" for large PMFs which have systems under multiple powers?
Yep and... not only by players, in theory also NPCs' (as FDEV said) "hostility" becomes much relevant than now.
If there's no way to de-link BGS activities from having consequences (+/-) on powerplay, players pledged to a power can [inadvertently] produce effects at powerplay level.
PMF having their systems across 2+ powers will face clearly the worst scenario, as if they pick one of the powers, they might be shot elsewhere... so I guess for those the best option is to keep a neutral stance, so if players want to pledge for modules... they're going to pledge at their own risk.
I have same puzzle in my head... if I'd be a leader of one of the PMF will very likely decide to pick one of the powers and going to sacrifice the other territories, but others may launch surveys asking their players to pick up one of the power, or they may just decide to keep a neutral stance vs. powerplay at PMF/squadron level and let players decide at their own risk.
The best option, given a prevailing KoS ethos in the occupying power, is just carry on as normal, but in PG/Solo, isn't it?
Correct. And the fact that PMFs in PP 1.0 can be "weaponised" it's much more relevant than the current "merit metric": killing an enemy pledged player has some effect only if the player is hauling powerplay commodities (this is base case for module shoppers and randoms) and/or is holding undermining/expansion combat merits (this is base case for powerplayers).
Yes, these "diplomatic nuances" may be a solution for certain areas and of course depending by the relationship between power and PMF. But when the area becomes "hot", or an attrition zone vs. other powers, all activities in the area become relevant... in particular if a power is looking to defend the area and it gets undermined by both enemies and the local PMF players who are just minding their business but with a wrong pledge.
Tolerance in general may vary, but I assume powers don't like to micromanage diplomatic relationships with PMF (and it's something powers would rather like to get rid off).
That PMFs can be weaponised is precisely why it is so ludicrous to suggest that open mode is somehow lacking in power in such a way as to need a blanket boost; It's utterly absurd.
I'd go so far to suggest that; Only someone who has a very limited understanding of the scope, would think such.
If the activity is conducted in solo/PG that will give a further +weight to add on the "zero tolerance side".
PMFs will not be weaponised in PP 2.0, but players yes (as a potential consequence of such PMF presence in powerplay system).
You can recruit soldiers or pilots in open, you can even pay them.
You think it says: Destroy enemy NPCs.
would be better?