I find it's rarely worth the risk when you can dock perfectly normally in a neighbouring system.
Powerplay SNIPING in Powerplay
- Thread starter chagnampra
- Start date
I find it's rarely worth the risk when you can dock perfectly normally in a neighbouring system.
Depending on your ship, the outposts don't care if you're wanted or not.
I'm usually in a Clipper...
Yeah they can't land on outposts. Python can, or an FDL.
Another issue I've found with outposts (when using a Courier) is that they don't always have re-arming facilities.
This "idea" isn't so great, when you think about it. You basically removing valid tactics from the game. How about making PowerPlay to Open Play only, so that proper blockade can be organised?
Then the Imperials would never be able to effect PP, being that they're constantly in solo/Empire mode
I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase it please?
This also massively favours the Empire, because they are simply not undermined to the extent that all the other powers (sans Antal) is, despite the fact that they have two of the top 3 powers in the galactic rating. Why not? In all likelihood because the Empire powers are the ones doing most of the undermining, and they cannot undermine each other.
Let me draw you a table explaining why this is a horrible idea in terms of fairness. The top row is how many percent a system was undermined, and below that you see just how many systems each power has that fit that criteria. The data is from week 14.
| (Allegiance) Power (W14 rank) | 100% | 150% | 200% | 300% | 400% | 500% | 600% | 700% | 800% | 900% | 1,000% |
| (E) Arissa Lavigny-Duval (1) | 29 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (E) Aisling Duval (2) | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (E) Denton Patreus (6) | 13 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (E) Zemina Torval (10) | 27 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (I) Pranav Antal (9) | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (I) Li Yong-Rui (7) | 14 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (I) Archon Delaine (8) | 21 | 16 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| (A) Edmund Mahon (3) | 32 | 23 | 18 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| (F) Felicia Winters (4) | 28 | 16 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| (F) Zachary Hudson (5) | 41 | 17 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Just to paint a word picture, and remember - the Empire make up 40% of all powers and they have 207 out of 502 non-HQ control systems (41.2%) and the other six powers have 295 (58.8%):
100+%. Empire: 71 out of 210 (33.8%). 41.8% of all non-HQ control systems hit this value, 34.3% for Empire powers, 47.1% for non-Empire powers.
150+%. Empire: 25 out of 107 (23.4%). 21.3% of all non-HQ control systems hit this value, 12.1% for Empire powers, 27.8% for non-Empire powers.
200+%. Empire: 11 out of 68 (16.2%). 13.5% of all non-HQ control systems hit this value, 5.3% for Empire powers, 19.3% for non-Empire powers.
300+%. Empire: 5 out of 39 (12.8%). 7.8% of all non-HQ control systems hit this value, 2.4% for Empire powers, 11.5%.
400+%. Empire: 0 out of 28 (0.0%). 5.6% of all non-HQ control systems hit this value, 0% for Empire powers, 9.5%.
At no point does the Empire see any kind of undermining that is proportional to their galactic standing OR their portion of control systems.
So - if you want to make the system favour the Empire even more, yes, the idea of forcing high-undermined systems into turmoil makes perfect sense, but that's the only time it'll make sense to do so.
The ultimate solution is limiting powerplay to open only.
I suggested that a while ago
I see no reason why cashing in your merits effects the war. The Ships were destroyed, whether the HQ is informed of that or not doesn't matter.
Just update the totals when they happen, but don't give the player their own personal merits until they cash them in.
If a player dies they lose their merits, this shouldn't in any way mean the ships that player destroyed are magically back, as it does with the current system.
I made an account on the forums just so I could add my opinion to the bucket.
I like the above suggested implemented changes. CMDR John Casey's idea provides a new immersive change that allows players to do the leg work of finding out when/where opposing powers are targeting their systems and thus sound the alarm to send in reinforcements. Fergal's idea eliminates sniping but still provides the threat that a CMDR may lose their merits should they be killed before they can claim them in their own control system.
In my own opinion I think undermining sniping is a bit underhanded, but I also think it's a clever use of game mechanics that can be countered by properly fortifying. I myself am enlisted with President Hudson and though I mainly play in solo I do like to partake in the last minute Wednesday fortifying storm to shore up loose ends when I can. Shout out to Ant Solo for his excellent weekly fortification strategy threads.
I think that undermining an enemy power shouldn't be limited to how many ships I can kill and thus how many merits I can carry but by the following 3 things:
- Resources: You can only stay out and last as long as you have fuel, ammo, SCBs, etc. This can also include needing to repair your ship.
- Opposition: This mainly applies to Open Play, but if you're in an enemy system and wing of enemy CMDRs comes around then you either need to risk being confronted or retreat.
- Time: I have a life outside of ED so I can only put in so much time towards playing the game. This would be different for each CMDR.
Just request landing permission and land.
The system security ship will shoot at you, but the station wont.
Being hostile is easier to dock than being wanted, if they scan you when you are wanted the station revokes your landing permission.
- - - Updated - - -
John Caseys idea involves an actual real change to PP, we can't get bugs looked at, there isn't going to be an additional mechanic created.
Unless the change is extremely simple, like limiting the number of vouchers, its not going to happen.
Originally Posted by CMDR John Casey
My proposal for collecting intel creates a new role, the scout, and solves the solo/open issues. You go to a system, you collect intel, you come back, your power knows what's happening. This is compatible with the proposal by Sandro, I have to say. The fact you know nothing is because you didn't send your scouts out there (so if you get sniped is twice your fault: you didn't fortify and you didn't collect intel).
Originally Posted by fergal
I suggested that a while ago
I see no reason why cashing in your merits effects the war. The Ships were destroyed, whether the HQ is informed of that or not doesn't matter.
Just update the totals when they happen, but don't give the player their own personal merits until they cash them in.
If a player dies they lose their merits, this shouldn't in any way mean the ships that player destroyed are magically back, as it does with the current system.
John's idea is a great one. Currently its like "Wow - someone is undermining our efforts, but who?" It's like fighting a blackbox. More transparency, please. When a system is undermined, and selected in the power tab, it could break it up who's doing this - like 10% ALD, 80% Pirates, 10% Utopians. It would increase the immersion and in my case take out the frustration of not knowing against we are fighting.
.
@fergal - true. We get the bounty or merits immediately into our account. But the effect on the power happens when handing in the merits? The destruction should have immediately effect the involved powers. The merit is a bonus to the commander. Sounds disconnected.
.
What bothers me about PP is that ED is dynamic, the trading routes are dynamic, but PP appears static due to its weekly cycle. Also the limitation in what can be done to change things in PP... A career as smuggler, spy, saboteur via given missions to infiltrate, manipulate or blow up things would be great. e.g. lead / protect / stop / kill Convoys, hijack passengers, lock RES's, undermine economy to alter CCs generated, close a market, hack into the security system, distract police or guide them using the beacon (to destroy a enemy convoy when discovered?), ... PP needs more options on how to support a power, be part of the sim and not an add on.
"Playing" PP since a few weeks, could be great, but ... I don't know - feels shallow ...
At a stab, it's to make factions "different" through some arbitrary mechanic.
E.g Patreus supporters can hand their kills in at any control/HQ system. Alliance supporters can only hand theirs in at the HQ. Not saying i like this, since it already confused me once, but nonetheless it is what it is.
EDIT: This makes it "easier" for Patreus supporters to hand in merits, ergo more effective at combat types. Whether it's enough to make a difference is another question entirely.
Last edited:
Uhm... Fortify your systems always and not only as required is quite effective I think.
If you're at war and you don't set up an appropriate defense, don't expect enemies to not take advantage of your weakness. Check any military history book.
This was a quote talking about 5th columning and sabotage, preparing rotten systems and expanding them just to harm a power's CC base and (potentially) putting them into turmoil. Check your facts.
Last edited:
Well I'm sorry but I checked your post and it can be misinterpreted.
Sniping is a part of powerplay. Remove it, by limiting the amount of merits you can carry, would only be a advantage for large powers.
Smaller powers have no way to counter larger powers anymore if sniping is removed.
Smaller powers would be overrun.
Smaller powers have no way to counter larger powers anymore if sniping is removed.
Smaller powers would be overrun.
Again, no-one is talking about removing sniping (only those who don't wish to see a voucher cap at all). Sniping would still be possible, IF it was well-coordinated between aligned CMDRs. Sure, this requires effort - but then, so does fortifying everything. The point is to ensure there is a greater balance between the two activities. Anyway, I shouldn't worry - FD are only considering this; it is unlikely to be implemented anytime soon. In the meantime, the discussion is important.
Sniping takes a considerable amount of risk and organising already, more then fortifying does. Smaller powers get sniped all the time, you dont see them complaining about it, they just fortify.
If there is going to be a cap for merits in undermining, you'd limit the smaller powers even further, making it even harder to counter a large power.
Again , why dont they just limit PP to open and give defending players merits for destroying ships that are undermining their system. It would bring alot more interaction and PVP to the galaxy and give all powers a fair chance.