With this "Answer from the Devs," I quit Powerplay.
In every post I make I try to be courteous and respectful, but your theory about balancing Powerplay simply sucks. And it kills me because I was looking forward to Powerplay more than anything else in this game. I am so disappointed. It makes for terrible role play, and I'll tell you why.
I quote:
"Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?
Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised."--- FD
I did not join Senator Petraeus because I want to shoot at Hudson or Winters. I JOINED SENATOR PETRAEUS BECAUSE I'M FOR SENATOR PETRAEUS! I want to BE for somebody--that's the HEART of roleplay. I don't want to simply be AGAINST someone and that's what dominates my roleplay. Why do I only get 1 merit for shooting down an enemy ship in an invasion area that is valuable FOR Petraeus.
Please take a step back and think about this proposition for a minute.
You get 15 merits for shooting down an enemy Adder in a random hostile system. You get 1 merit for killing an Anaconda in an invasion area that's highly valuable to the expansion of your power.
You get the same reward for killing 15 Anaconda's in the service of your Power that you do for merit farming in a random system. Who could POSSIBLY think that even enters into the realm of common sense?!
Are you SERIOUSLY going to argue to me that the adder I killed in the random hostile system was 15 times more important to destroy than the Anaconda in the system we are taking over? And you're going to argue that this balance system is an INCENTIVE for meaningful combat experience?
But let's be fair--the reason FD cited this balance choice was "we are happy that hostile actions are incentivized." In other words, who cares that it's senseless? It's more fun with hostile combat incentives. I'm sorry but Roleplay is more than PEW PEW. Frontier, if you want Powerplay to be fun without it making sense, it will be neither. You have to BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU'RE DOING to make roleplay fun. And how could someone believe in something so senseless?
Besides, please do tell me how getting 1 merit for killing an Anaconda in an invasion area incentivizes combat?
*sits back with popcorn and waits*
No? Oh, maybe you mean PVP combat? So what about the overwhelming majority of undermining farmers that are sitting in "Solo" mode to make bank off the system? Have you ever spent time trying to "catch" the underminers in the act? I invite you to try.
*sits back again*
Still nothing?
Maybe you mean conflict between the Powers? That's gotta be it. FD wants the drama of the Powers fighting over the same turf.
Turf that can't be invaded? Turf that can't be "warred" over because of the fictional cold war? Turf that players simply use to stage hit run run attacks on NPC eagles and haulers? That's the FD concept of a dramatic struggle between powers? Newsflash: 80% of the undermining being done is not to benefit a power--its for merit farming.
Weak. And also not roleplay. And the worst part of all? Working as intended.
