General Two small suggestions for PP 2.0

CMDR Abbe Someone

C
I have been engaging with the Powerplay 2.0 systems, and want to describe something that happened to me -- I think it will be clear that the situation doesn't make a lot of sense from a world-building point of view. Here's the story (based on a true story - "names have been changed to protect the innocent"): I was hauling everyday cargo to a station in a system that had allegiance to the Feds, and I was pledged to Winters. Mahon was the system's power. I was scanned by Mahon's power security, who commenced to shoot. So that's disconnect number 1: this is a Federation system and I was pledged to a power aligned with the Feds, but I get shot at by an authority -- this doesn't seem right to me. But even worse, I was curious about what would happen if I shot back. So I did, from outside of the station's no fire zone. What happened is that I received a bounty and the entire station turned hostile to me. So, I shot an Alliance power vessel and incurred a bounty with the Feds. That can't be right. Imagine I was delivering famine or outbreak cargo. Why should the Federal authorities get mad at me for shooting at an Alliance vessel that was trying to stop me from doing something in the Federation's best interests?

One problem is that all authority vessels are treated as "the same", and this could be coded differently, but the more fundamental problem is that the superpower and power systems are not well-integrated. To me, in the current version of PP 2.0, powers behave like warlords in the sense that they compete with one another regardless of any shared superpower affiliations. This has the function of undermining the meaning of the superpower structure. I don't think this was intentional, as superpowers are deeply embedded into both Elite's lore and current environment ("Welcome to Alliance space").

I don't have a good solution to this problem, but I hope two small suggestions that if implemented might help reduce its visibility and impact:

1. Allow power security to attack the ships of rival powers under the same superpower umbrella only if the ship is carrying power cargo (or, of course, is wanted etc.). For example, Mahon power security could attack a Kane-pledged cmdr if their ship is carrying Kane garrison supplies, but if carrying non-power cargo, Mahon's power security would just grumble and fly off to find someone else to harass.
2. In systems that have allegiance to a superpower, allow power security to patrol only if the power is aligned with the superpower. Power security could
patrol in any independent system, but for example, Aisling power security could not patrol in a system aligned with the Alliance.

I'm sure I am missing something, so happy to hear about that. While these suggestions are based on the desire to have a more coherent world environment, I recognize that an overarching complication is that the good people at FDev have to both build a world that has some coherence and avoid creating undesired community behavior -- balancing these is not easy.
 

Brrokk

Brrokk
CMDR Abbe Someone said:
I have been engaging with the Powerplay 2.0 systems, and want to describe something that happened to me -- I think it will be clear that the situation doesn't make a lot of sense from a world-building point of view. Here's the story (based on a true story - "names have been changed to protect the innocent"): I was hauling everyday cargo to a station in a system that had allegiance to the Feds, and I was pledged to Winters. Mahon was the system's power. I was scanned by Mahon's power security, who commenced to shoot. So that's disconnect number 1: this is a Federation system and I was pledged to a power aligned with the Feds, but I get shot at by an authority -- this doesn't seem right to me. But even worse, I was curious about what would happen if I shot back. So I did, from outside of the station's no fire zone. What happened is that I received a bounty and the entire station turned hostile to me. So, I shot an Alliance power vessel and incurred a bounty with the Feds. That can't be right. Imagine I was delivering famine or outbreak cargo. Why should the Federal authorities get mad at me for shooting at an Alliance vessel that was trying to stop me from doing something in the Federation's best interests?

One problem is that all authority vessels are treated as "the same", and this could be coded differently, but the more fundamental problem is that the superpower and power systems are not well-integrated. To me, in the current version of PP 2.0, powers behave like warlords in the sense that they compete with one another regardless of any shared superpower affiliations. This has the function of undermining the meaning of the superpower structure. I don't think this was intentional, as superpowers are deeply embedded into both Elite's lore and current environment ("Welcome to Alliance space").

I don't have a good solution to this problem, but I hope two small suggestions that if implemented might help reduce its visibility and impact:

1. Allow power security to attack the ships of rival powers under the same superpower umbrella only if the ship is carrying power cargo (or, of course, is wanted etc.). For example, Mahon power security could attack a Kane-pledged cmdr if their ship is carrying Kane garrison supplies, but if carrying non-power cargo, Mahon's power security would just grumble and fly off to find someone else to harass.
2. In systems that have allegiance to a superpower, allow power security to patrol only if the power is aligned with the superpower. Power security could
patrol in any independent system, but for example, Aisling power security could not patrol in a system aligned with the Alliance.

I'm sure I am missing something, so happy to hear about that. While these suggestions are based on the desire to have a more coherent world environment, I recognize that an overarching complication is that the good people at FDev have to both build a world that has some coherence and avoid creating undesired community behavior -- balancing these is not easy.
Click to expand...
I think of PP2 as being more gang warfare than an actual war. It makes a bit more sense like that.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
CMDR Abbe Someone said:
Why should the Federal authorities get mad at me for shooting at an Alliance vessel that was trying to stop me from doing something in the Federation's best interests?
Click to expand...
Minor faction behaviour isn't particularly sensible anyway: a Federal Democracy and a Federal Corporation will go to war with each other at the slightest pretext. Nor does the crime system make any sense in terms of what's illegal and what's disliked (except for Powerplay actions, they're exactly the same, which is nonsensical)

In this case, Mahon has effectively corrupted the Federal system authorities with some cushy trade deals, so someone quietly changes the "who shot first" record and you get the bounty.

Note that you don't get notoriety for Powerplay kills, and Powerplay attacks don't in general summon system security ships (though they will react if they're already there) so the bounty is really just a minor inconvenience to encourage you to leave the system eventually, rather than anything too serious.

CMDR Abbe Someone said:
I don't have a good solution to this problem, but I hope two small suggestions that if implemented might help reduce its visibility and impact:

1. Allow power security to attack the ships of rival powers under the same superpower umbrella only if the ship is carrying power cargo (or, of course, is wanted etc.). For example, Mahon power security could attack a Kane-pledged cmdr if their ship is carrying Kane garrison supplies, but if carrying non-power cargo, Mahon's power security would just grumble and fly off to find someone else to harass.
Click to expand...
Remember that anything like this would also stop you shooting at enemy power ships in your own territory in a lot of circumstances.

There are plenty of things you can be doing which gain undermining merits - salvage operations, holoscreen hacks, low-value market flooding, mining - which aren't illegal nor involve power cargo, but which it's absolutely in the interests of the local Power to stop you doing.

I think, in general, it's Powerplay that's right here - you're doing something overtly against the interests of the ruling group, so they shoot at you for it. Non-Powerplay activities are just weird in that factions will generally entirely ignore actions which harm them so long as some other faction says it's legal. Odyssey being another exception to this, where shooting a Wanted settlement worker will still get all their Clean friends helping to return fire!

Yes, it's a bit odd at first if you've been conditioned by the older spaceship content and the strange minor faction crime system to equate "legal" with "universally popular".

CMDR Abbe Someone said:
2. In systems that have allegiance to a superpower, allow power security to patrol only if the power is aligned with the superpower. Power security could patrol in any independent system, but for example, Aisling power security could not patrol in a system aligned with the Alliance.
Click to expand...
There are two problems here, I think.
1) It significantly disadvantages independent powers over superpower-aligned ones (which is not a bias that Powerplay needs adding to it) in a general sense
2) It gives a sudden incentive - which Powerplay 2 was designed to get away from - for Powerplay groups to start flipping factional control of systems to something they prefer. That's not good for either the Powerplay groups (who have to deal with the BGS, which wasn't designed to be deliberately manipulated like that), or for the people who are into BGS manipulation.
 

CMDR Abbe Someone

C
@ Ian Doncaster - thank you for your responses. I knew I was probably missing something (like market flooding and malware). I don't necessarily agree that some of the things you identify as problems are problems. For example, the fact that independent powers would be disadvantaged seems like a feature not a bug to me -- there are consequences associated with going it alone and benefits from being in a group, and the inability to stop malware, for example, is one of the prices powers pay to get the benefits of the group. (btw market flooding could easily be addressed via coding ).

But if you don't mind, I'd rather engage with the larger point: You seem to think that the superpower and power systems are reasonably well integrated and working as intended. Have I understood you correctly? If so, can you help me understand your point by completing this? Superpowers are like...Powers are like...Factions are like...

I asked this in reddit and the best answer I received was superpowers are like countries, powers are like political parties, and factions are like states/provinces/oblasts. To me, this just highlights the integration problem: if powers are like political parties, then the fact that a system aligned with a superpower can have a power aligned with a different superpower is likely saying that the most influential political party in a given state/province/oblast is in a different country. And that everyone would think it is ok for the political party's goons to rough me up.

I will probably either (a) stop engaging with the PP system or (b) align with an independent power (which from the perspective of the individual player means that these things that seem incongruent to me aren't an issue). Finding a non-objectionable independent power is proving a challenge! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom