Trailblazers | Update 3.4
- Thread starter Phil W
- Start date
Perhaps due to it being too binary right now - either you still have a supporting system and nothing happens, or you don't and the system falls from exploited.
The automatic decay merely from being over 25% is something which I sincerely hope Frontier will reconsider, but I could see something like if a Stronghold/Fortified go down a state, then all systems supported by it suffer decay. That'd diminish the benefit of all the overlapping going on, and reward attackers for tackling it even when it doesn't cause anything to drop.
Last edited:
One of the major flaws in Powerplay is that Kumo Burger will not deliver to my apartment building. The parking lot is too dangerous.
Excuse me, but that's completely
and limits the game. Who appointed anyone as a leader, or who has the power to proclaim themselves Secretary General or CEO of Le Yong-Rui? Calling you a dissident for not following their "strategy."I can already see BTF players making non-aggression treaties... in a single-player war game.
This is a criticism of players who misappropriate a power or system.
Things would be better if Frontier had members or an AI playing their chess game with clear guidelines, and the players were their pawns
. Objectives with three priority levels. Now we have missions that depend on where you're stationed in the Weekly Tick, with orders and missions, no rhyme or reason. Missions should originate from the Bastion Ship or from the power's representative in each system which clearly objective for the Power Play Chess Game.
And the changes are welcome. You may agree more or less with the metrics used, but in reality, an unattended system, location, or barracks deteriorates and requires constant supplies. But commercial supplies, not pamphlets.
The pamphlet system gives multi-accounts a huge advantage. I take my 700 Power items, change accounts... another 700, change accounts, and another 700. In 5 minutes, 2,100 merits for the power in question.
o7
So, Trailblazers was always all about Power Play, and not about colonization?Excuse me, but that's completely
I can already see BTF players making non-aggression treaties... in a single-player war game.
This is a criticism of players who misappropriate a power or system.
Things would be better if Frontier had members or an AI playing their chess game with clear guidelines, and the players were their pawns
Missions should originate from the Bastion Ship or from the power's representative in each system which clearly objective for the Power Play Chess Game.
And the changes are welcome. You may agree more or less with the metrics used, but in reality, an unattended system, location, or barracks deteriorates and requires constant supplies. But commercial supplies, not pamphlets.
The pamphlet system gives multi-accounts a huge advantage. I take my 700 Power items, change accounts... another 700, change accounts, and another 700. In 5 minutes, 2,100 merits for the power in question.
o7
I dont know ... tell me you https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/trailblazers-update-3-4.638963/post-10666365 ... for example.So, Trailblazers was always all about Power Play, and not about colonization?
The current state of Powerplay is gross. Any mechanic that not just penalises players but outright invalidates player effort is terrible. You're going to make players quit playing. Trying to keep players playing due to sunken cost fallacy and fear of losing work done is a gross practice. Grinding against the game itself just to nudge a system forward a little is such a sheer disrespect of player time. It almost sounds like real life, getting disrespected for 30-40+ hours a week and at the end of the month maybe you've done alright to break even. Do you see how this sounds? And how it's a terrible look? You would do well to find an even worse solution to this, it needs to be addressed and overhauled.
It's just another bandaid rather than a deeper fix to a system. Others will say "well that costs money" which is correct, but failing to address systemic issues of your gameplay systems also costs money in lost revenue.
How about you people start making constructive suggestions instead of the constant whining? It's tiresome.
Indeed it is
Is there a point to constructive critism or suggestions that lead to a different outcome to whining with elite? Seems like we end up just getting whatever fdev already decided to do either way.
Yes: It leads to a more positive and warm community where people share their passion for a hobby.
When you are passionate about something, it's tiresome to constantly read people hating on it and writing criticism in a very denigrating tone. It just sucks the joy out of that passion. And when that keeps happening year after year, it's really tiresome.
If it keeps happening year after year and doesn't seem to be changing but the people do. Maybe the problem isn't them. Or maybe it's not a community, but multiple communities that see the other's as the reason why the game can't be perfect for how their community would want it save not for the need to also cater to the others in some way. I dont see any hope of unification, so some people are just gonna remain tired till they bounce
There's an "Ignore" button for posters you think are uninteresting or for whatever reason don't want to read their stuff.
But also, it's tough to put forward constructive suggestions for improving Powerplay - not that there aren't several out there both in this thread and elsewhere on the forums - because it's really unclear right now:
- what scale of changes Frontier might want to consider
- what Frontier's end goal for Powerplay is and how they think it should work
- whether Frontier understands why the overall effect of all their "encourage more aggressive play" changes so far has been to move from the previous roughly 8:1 ratio to this week's 40:1 ratio in favour of defensive reinforcement
- ultimately, why the split between what Frontier says about competition and what Frontier does about competition exists.
Sure, but even if you don't have an ideas on how to fix a problem, the problem itself can be described in a much more neutral manner. There's no need to denigrate the developers and their work. The devs, I'm quite certain, are doing their best and this is something they love doing.
Rather than saying something like:
"The current state of Powerplay is gross. Any mechanic that not just penalises players but outright invalidates player effort is terrible."
one could instead say something like:
"I appreciate the effort and work that the devs are putting into improving and balancing powerplay, but I think that the latest changes made to it are more detrimental than beneficial to the game" (and then proceed to give reasons for this in a neutral tone.)
Fdev has not only implement decay, but also cap. I'm in a system where the progression arrow is stuck à 25% fortified, (starting from 0 exploited) CP are over 775k.
So I did the same with my budget that i allow to FDev, a cap and a decay, so I can't buy Panther Clipper nor new coming ships anymore.
So I did the same with my budget that i allow to FDev, a cap and a decay, so I can't buy Panther Clipper nor new coming ships anymore.
That's been there from the start. You also can't in the other direction undermine a fortified system below 75% exploited in a single week, not that that comes up very much.
The first example is short, doesn't "denigrate the developers" - no-one is personally being criticised here - and gets across the major player objection to Decay very clearly and concisely, as well as making clear that there is some significant strength of feeling behind this.
Your suggested alternative takes almost twice the words to say nothing at all, downplays the strength of feeling and scale of the problem by suggesting that it's merely an "on balance" thing, and then would need further words to set out what the actual problem was.
And don't get me wrong - I will quite happily write paragraph after paragraph, with graphs to note why Decay is both ineffective at actually containing or slowing successful Reinforcement and counter-productive to many of the other apparent aims of Powerplay besides - so I'm not saying other people shouldn't either, but that's because I like graphs, not because I have any expectation that this will be a productive way to get Powerplay improved/changed/worsened but worsened in a way that I'd personally like/etc.
So what? You wanting to go to the style of "lol shm u suk"?