Out in the middle of nowhere I'd agree- this is why I was hoping PvE NPCs like this had context as instancing has its limits. But if it was a moon / planet inside a stronghold, they should be there ( at least some ) given surface activity could yield merits to use against the power.
Powerplay 2.0 : what we know from partners' streams
- Thread starter Bard Voronwe
- Start date
Indeed. Some powers have bonuses (like V1) which allow faster affinity with the lead faction too IIRC. This does also mean lead factions are going to get pasted too AFAIK.
From what he said in the video, it looks like that first example was the worst one, and also, the problem was that in all tests, he was immediately shot at after being scanned, with no provocation, no hostile action on his part.
I don't know if the planet in question was inhabited, though - from what he said, it sounded like it was, but it's ambiguous. If it was settled though, and he just dropped down somewhere far from the existing installations, then I think it should be no surprise that NPCs would arrive. In my opinion, what is problematic is the kill-on-sight (well, scan) attitude even when the player doesn't have any bounties on them.
I don't know if the planet in question was inhabited, though - from what he said, it sounded like it was, but it's ambiguous. If it was settled though, and he just dropped down somewhere far from the existing installations, then I think it should be no surprise that NPCs would arrive. In my opinion, what is problematic is the kill-on-sight (well, scan) attitude even when the player doesn't have any bounties on them.
For PP 2.0 I have a feeling being on the defensive or in a severely contested region could end up being a bgs player's absolute worst nightmare, due to the negative influence being thrown around by underminers. I don't know if there are "positive" actions that can be used to undermine systems or not.
Sounds like there are (for example, see this list), although I do wonder how effective they'd be, whether PP-ers would pick them over the other actions.
Its an interesting question- it'll get confusing when you have positive negative actions, negative negative actions and known unknowns
mind explodes
There is still nothing to stop people from just sitting at odyssey settlements and blowing up civilian ships to undermine, unless they finally fixed no system security/ATR there it will be an extremely easy way to undermine.
Ah OK I see, that makes sense. Would I be correct in surmising that there is effectively a reduced effect upon the world via the BGS if you are not pledged to any power?
No, I'm agreeing with you. If you want to engage in powerplay and get the goodies, then there SHOULD be a price to pay.
That said, there should be levels to it. The higher your ranking, the bigger the target on your back. If you're actively on a powerplay duty and have ongoing missions, they should be on the lookout for you. But conversely if you're just tootling around, then there should be less threat.
I think there should (and may well already be planned) alliances. If you're pledged to the footpic queen, then other Empire powers give you a bit more leeway than if you were a fed. Similarly, the independent/alliance powers should be somewhat ambivalent towards each other rather than outright hostile.
Alec said it best on the recent Lave Radio, if you live in a constituency that voted one way and you drive over to a neighbouring one that was tory for example, you might not fit in if you voted green, but you wouldn't be shot for it.
Absolutely- V1 had this with people who we caught with bounties or merits. The issue for V2 is that since everything is PvE, everything also counts- data, cargo, missions anything. Thus the separation of guilt and innocence is impossible and why I feel NPCs should be more hostile than less.
This is still an unanswered question that a lot of people are wanting answers to- especially ZYADA. It might be that Grom can only help as a third party in contested system fights, while what Z_ADA powers can do is unclear.
I don't think thats accurate though. There will be distrust, given that so many activities lead to undermining. For example political party A would be wary of Political party B co-coordinating vandals and crime to make them look bad, and that 'elections' are really whoever can fight the best (since contested systems are fought over via CZs AFAIK) and unlike election states in the BGS.
Some activity? We're talking about planets/moons that are hundreds, if not thousands of km in diameter. The chances of a wing of enemies flying past over that exact region (20km radius-ish) on the planet at the exact moment someone spawns there is literally astronomically small.
And this is where having an abstracted game crosses over with believable situations. If I get collared instantly for any crime by a giant pair of floating, inescapable eyes so should someone else have a chance in a stronghold of someone being 'followed'.
Ok, well, i guess we are on opposite sides here of what makes for good gameplay.
This is the limitation of abstracting NPCs, unlike...what the other place talks about.
Stronghold, sure. But random planet on the edge of their sphere of influence?
As I said, I do think there needs to be permanent jeopardy in powerplay, but there should be levels to it. Poke your nose into the middle of a stronghold system? Shoot first, ask questions later. Controlled system? Treated with suspicion absolutely, followed and under constant surveillance, sure, and if you step out of line then open fire. On the "outer rim"? Should be overweight pie munchers counting the days to retirement and not wanting any drama, not the kale crew.
Powerplay is definitionally about the conflict between the Powers, but that doesn't necessarily mean combat. All stages of it appear to have plenty of non-combat (or at least, you're not doing the shooting) actions to get points for your side. Entire systems could change hands without a shot being fired by a player, certainly.
(And on the other side, the Thargoid war has a very heavy combat element, but doesn't address inter-human conflict at all. All players are on the same "side")
"No bounties" isn't really a useful Powerplay concept, it appears - many of the things you can do to undermine a system (trade, restore power to settlements, search and rescue, etc.) are perfectly legal in terms of the controlling minor faction allowing it, but the Power NPCs should still make an attempt to stop you doing it because they don't want the system to think more highly of your Power when you succeed. Entering a system aligned to another Power is almost automatically a hostile act in its own right.
Taking the list from
I've highlighted BGS-positive in green, BGS-negative in red, and ones which could go either way in yellow.
Mostly they're either positive or not obviously directly relevant to the BGS. (And I think all the fortify/acquire actions are positive or neutral for the jurisdiction owner, at a quick glance, so an actual contest should end up net positive)
Also of course, they don't necessarily have to be done to/for the controlling faction. Selling mined resources at a market owned by someone else will be positive for the minor faction controlling that random settlement, but therefore negative for the system controller; killing everyone at that settlement afterward to boost the "crimes" rating will be negative for the settlement controller but positive for the system controller.
That's a tricky one to answer. ("No" is the simple literal answer, but that misses some subtleties)
- your actions obviously won't affect the Powerplay balance of the system at all if you're not pledged, and that's certainly a reduced effect on the world ... but not via the BGS.
- your actions will have the normal direct effect on the BGS balance between the minor factions whether or not you're pledged, that will all remain the same
- depending on who you've pledged to and what rank you are, some of those bonuses (increased bounty or exploration payouts, for example) might increase the effect you have on the BGS as an indirect effect ... but a rank 1 pledge would be no different to an unpledged player, because they wouldn't have those bonuses yet, so it's not merely the act of pledging that does that, and not all Powers grant bonuses that are useful in any particular situation.
- depending on the effects that a Power has on systems it controls, changing the controlling Power might indirectly make things easier or harder for particular factions in that system. You can only carry out that change as a Power pledge ... but you can take advantage of it as a neutral. So is that a reduced effect or not?
If its somewhere away from Powerplay, and the % chance decreases in line with distance to a stronghold then that would be good.
Good question
I would rather say that unless you're aware of what's happening in PP 2.0 in your particular system or the system you want to do BGS in - then the results of your BGS work may well be unpredictable.For example, there are certain BGS desired effects that require a precise amount of INF to be accumulated in the right faction at the right time. But if that particular system is hotly contested by two Powers - ie. a ton of pledged players doing many unpredictable BGS things so their side gets ahead - then you may be better off waiting for a quieter day to do your stuff.
In a funny way PP 2.0 for BGS players is like the weather - you wait for a sunny predictable day
Last edited:
Not a limitation at all. Simply stop PP NPCs spawning above random locations on planets without reason.
Consider this though. Say the wing of enemies is in supercruise. They would see your low wake at the planet and could use that to track you fairly easily. It's the same way that when you are being pursued by a criminal or law enforcement NPC in SC, you can drop out in the middle of space and they always manage to drop in on you.