Powerplay SNIPING in Powerplay

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

Just to let you know, we're also considering information flow (for example having the number of ships destroyed in a system available) as potentially part of the solution to the sniping issue (and I use the term advisedly: I do think it's a bit of an issue as there's basically nothing the target can do apart from fortify every system).

The more I've been thinking about vouchers (and watching the debate), the more I've cooled on the idea. It still has merit, and is good in terms of simplicity, but (despite accusations ) I do worry about the ability of smaller powers to operate and thrive.

My contention with sniping is that it's too one-sided.

Ideally, I would like to reach a solution where being a smaller power has some advantages, or where being a larger power takes more effort, but not to the point that sniping requires.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hello Commanders!

Just to let you know, we're also considering information flow (for example having the number of ships destroyed in a system available) as potentially part of the solution to the sniping issue (and I use the term advisedly: I do think it's a bit of an issue as there's basically nothing the target can do apart from fortify every system).

The more I've been thinking about vouchers (and watching the debate), the more I've cooled on the idea. It still has merit, and is good in terms of simplicity, but (despite accusations ) I do worry about the ability of smaller powers to operate and thrive.

My contention with sniping is that it's too one-sided.

Ideally, I would like to reach a solution where being a smaller power has some advantages, or where being a larger power takes more effort, but not to the point that sniping requires.

Could fortification values and undermining triggers be scaled to the size of the power?

Surprise attacks are and should be valid, but the workload itself could make sniping more difficult.

Sort of a 'logistics' cost- smaller powers have less to organize, while larger powers waste more though red tape (much like real life?)

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Rubbernuke!

Though it's a completely reasonable idea, the issue with scaling thresholds for fortification and undermining based on power size is that I don't see it helping large powers defend against sniping (actually, it might make it worse).

It could obviously help with the idea of buffing smaller powers though, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[SNaomiScott]

Hello Commanders!

Just to let you know, we're also considering information flow (for example having the number of ships destroyed in a system available) as potentially part of the solution to the sniping issue (and I use the term advisedly: I do think it's a bit of an issue as there's basically nothing the target can do apart from fortify every system).

The more I've been thinking about vouchers (and watching the debate), the more I've cooled on the idea. It still has merit, and is good in terms of simplicity, but (despite accusations ) I do worry about the ability of smaller powers to operate and thrive.

My contention with sniping is that it's too one-sided.

Ideally, I would like to reach a solution where being a smaller power has some advantages, or where being a larger power takes more effort, but not to the point that sniping requires.

Just a quick thought off the top of my head, but with regards to the idea of smaller powers having some advantages, how about having some sort of 'bonus merits' scheme inversely based on either a) the number of Control Systems a Power has, b) the size of the player-base pledged to the power, or c) a combination of the two.

For example, players pledged to a Power with a small player-base and few Control Systems could receive a merit bonus (either at the point of earning those merits or at the end of the cycle), while players pledged to a larger Power with more players don't get the bonus. This way the activity used to earn merits doesn't have any more effect on the targets but does reward the players for being pledged to the smaller Powers.

As I say, it's just a quick idea so I'd welcome feedback from people to dissect and explore this idea for viability.

 

[CMDR arti lectus]

Just a quick thought off the top of my head, but with regards to the idea of smaller powers having some advantages, how about having some sort of 'bonus merits' scheme inversely based on either a) the number of Control Systems a Power has, b) the size of the player-base pledged to the power, or c) a combination of the two.

For example, players pledged to a Power with a small player-base and few Control Systems could receive a merit bonus (either at the point of earning those merits or at the end of the cycle), while players pledged to a larger Power with more players don't get the bonus. This way the activity used to earn merits doesn't have any more effect on the targets but does reward the players for being pledged to the smaller Powers.

As I say, it's just a quick idea so I'd welcome feedback from people to dissect and explore this idea for viability.

As much as it sounds like a good idea, but as a result the smaller powers would become the bigger powers and the bigger powers the smaller ones, because of the merit grinders.

 

[JessieColt]

Hello Commanders!

Just to let you know, we're also considering information flow (for example having the number of ships destroyed in a system available) as potentially part of the solution to the sniping issue (and I use the term advisedly: I do think it's a bit of an issue as there's basically nothing the target can do apart from fortify every system).

The more I've been thinking about vouchers (and watching the debate), the more I've cooled on the idea. It still has merit, and is good in terms of simplicity, but (despite accusations ) I do worry about the ability of smaller powers to operate and thrive.

My contention with sniping is that it's too one-sided.

Ideally, I would like to reach a solution where being a smaller power has some advantages, or where being a larger power takes more effort, but not to the point that sniping requires.

Hello Sandro,

1. What we really need is a better way to communicate with other PP players of the same faction in game, not just on the forums. (Global Chat Channel locked on PP Faction?)

2. We also need a better way to "see" what is happening with our Control systems.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=183089

3. We should also have a way to earn merits for Enemy PvP/NPC kills.

Currently killing an NPC from an enemy faction in one of your Control Systems, rewards, at best, a small bounty claim. If you kill an Enemy in any system, no matter where you are or whether they are NPC or Player, you should be rewarded with with a voucher for merits.

I, personally, think that there are other ways to adjust Power Play in ways that do not directly affect how the current system works, that should be investigated before big changes are made.

We might find that small changes can have a big impact on Power Play.

 

[Lucifer Hate]

The thing that would make me side against the idea of the limits is that you have to go so much farther in most cases to undermine than you do to fortify (if you are smart in picking systems or don't get 5th columned). This would slant it to far the other direction I feel. Perhaps something needs to be done but don't think merit limits are the answer. This thread did mention another issue that needs to be addressed and that is the 5th column tactics that have been used since day 1 of Powerplay

 

[CMDR arti lectus]

Hello Commanders!

Just to let you know, we're also considering information flow (for example having the number of ships destroyed in a system available) as potentially part of the solution to the sniping issue (and I use the term advisedly: I do think it's a bit of an issue as there's basically nothing the target can do apart from fortify every system).

The more I've been thinking about vouchers (and watching the debate), the more I've cooled on the idea. It still has merit, and is good in terms of simplicity, but (despite accusations ) I do worry about the ability of smaller powers to operate and thrive.

My contention with sniping is that it's too one-sided.

Ideally, I would like to reach a solution where being a smaller power has some advantages, or where being a larger power takes more effort, but not to the point that sniping requires.

I hope there isnt still talk of a merit cap to undermining. If it would , I wouldnt be able to undermine systems further in a powers area, because of game-time and travel time. This would be a disadvantage for all powers. Is there still talk of a merit cap?

 

[SNaomiScott]

As much as it sounds like a good idea, but as a result the smaller powers would become the bigger powers and the bigger powers the smaller ones, because of the merit grinders.

That occurred to me as well, but in order to gain any real benefit then merit grinders have to either a) reach rank 4 or higher for the higher credit payout or b) reach rank 3 and stay in the power for four weeks (if working towards the Power's special item). In the case of a) then the merit grinders are going to need to switch powers with some level of regularity to chase the merit bonuses, leaving them open to defection disadvantages (such as they are) every time they do so. In the case of b) then during the four weeks that they're merit grinding the bonus will fade and disappear as more players join the smaller Powers.

In the case of a) especially, if the defection disadvantages were made more undesirable in some way (i.e. much higher risk of being interdicted by NPCs from the player's former power, longer timescales, etc) then this might be enough to dissuade some from following the merit bonuses and instead sticking with a single Power.

I'd also envisage the merit bonus suggested being a small one, never rising above +25% for the very smallest Powers in terms of Control Systems/player-base size.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Hello Commander Rubbernuke!

Though it's a completely reasonable idea, the issue with scaling thresholds for fortification and undermining based on power size is that I don't see it helping large powers defend against sniping (actually, it might make it worse).

It could obviously help with the idea of buffing smaller powers though, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But is that such a bad thing? It seems logical that it would be hard for large powers to counter as they have so much to defend against, while smaller powers have less space to patrol.

Also,.could the role of NPCs be buffed, so that commanders with large merit counts become notorious and are interdicted more? Sort of like a bounty for being an ace?

 

[JessieColt]

Just a quick thought off the top of my head, but with regards to the idea of smaller powers having some advantages, how about having some sort of 'bonus merits' scheme inversely based on either a) the number of Control Systems a Power has, b) the size of the player-base pledged to the power, or c) a combination of the two.

For example, players pledged to a Power with a small player-base and few Control Systems could receive a merit bonus (either at the point of earning those merits or at the end of the cycle), while players pledged to a larger Power with more players don't get the bonus. This way the activity used to earn merits doesn't have any more effect on the targets but does reward the players for being pledged to the smaller Powers.

As I say, it's just a quick idea so I'd welcome feedback from people to dissect and explore this idea for viability.

The better solution may be to lower the Fortification Trigger and increase the Undermining Trigger for the smaller Powers.

If a Power in 8/9/10 position on the standings had their Fortification trigger lowered by say, 10/15/20 percent, it would allow them to more quickly fortify their control systems without directly encouraging players to defect to them in order to Merit Grind faster. If Undermining Triggers were raised by the same percentage, it wouldn't stop Undermining, just even it out a bit more.

It would make things a little easier for players who have fewer numbers, without having an adverse affect on all of the other powers.

 

[CMDR arti lectus]

But is that such a bad thing? It seems logical that it would be hard for large powers to counter as they have so much to defend against, while smaller powers have less space to patrol.

Also,.could the role of NPCs be buffed, so that commanders with large merit counts become notorious and are interdicted more? Sort of like a bounty for being an ace?

When undermining you already get interdicted all the time, 1 ) because you are in hostile space 2 ) because you have a huge bounty for shooting and interdicting ships.

 

[SNaomiScott]

The better solution may be to lower the Fortification Trigger and increase the Undermining Trigger for the smaller Powers.

If a Power in 8/9/10 position on the standings had their Fortification trigger lowered by say, 10/15/20 percent, it would allow them to more quickly fortify their control systems without directly encouraging players to defect to them in order to Merit Grind faster. If Undermining Triggers were raised by the same percentage, it wouldn't stop Undermining, just even it out a bit more.

It would make things a little easier for players who have fewer numbers, without having an adverse affect on all of the other powers.

I like this idea as well, and I think it could also possibly make Power Play a bit more dynamic (those Powers in the 8/9/10 slot would be better able to turn around their fortunes and rise in the ranks again, forcing other Powers down to the bottom slots).

One question: what determines what the Fortification / Undermining triggers are in the first place? Is it the system they're tied to or is it affected by the Power they're controlled by as well?

 

[JessieColt]

I like this idea as well, and I think it could also possibly make Power Play a bit more dynamic (those Powers in the 8/9/10 slot would be better able to turn around their fortunes and rise in the ranks again, forcing other Powers down to the bottom slots).

One question: what determines what the Fortification / Undermining triggers are in the first place? Is it the system they're tied to or is it affected by the Power they're controlled by as well?

I, personally, do not know.

But different systems have different trigger numbers. I am sure that FD has some type of metrics in place to determine what that number should be.

 

[Rubbernuke]

When undermining you already get interdicted all the time, 1 ) because you are in hostile space 2 ) because you have a huge bounty for shooting and interdicting ships.

But could you scale the response? For example,.Those carrying 10,000 merits have death squads of vulture wings after them, while someone with 100 merits gets the usual? Make that hostile tag actually mean something?

 

[Moon920]

I'll go back and participate in PP when they make each faction DIFFERENT and missions different.

Right now they are all the same, boring and a merit grind instead of something FUN.

Really, why do a PIRATE like Archon Delaine function like everyonee else.

He is a wanted criminal and warlord - he should take over other crime syndicates in anarchy systems and create tortuga style systems and gain a majority of his income from EXPLOITED systems.

He should never have a FIXED HQ but rather the one which is the most profitable (from exploitation) at the time.

He should give 30 merits per stolen CARGO not to blatantly kill other faction members and make himself noticed.

wow, good call!

 

[withnail]

Hello Commander Rubbernuke!

Though it's a completely reasonable idea, the issue with scaling thresholds for fortification and undermining based on power size is that I don't see it helping large powers defend against sniping (actually, it might make it worse).

It could obviously help with the idea of buffing smaller powers though, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I personally think that any changes should adversely affect the larger powers and not the smaller ones. It's very grindy for a player in a small power, whereas the larger powers have more numbers to fortify etc. which means that they have more free time to do interesting things.

It would help if Archons fortification triggers could be looked at in the meantime. Patreus has triggers of around 2,500, whereas Archon's smallest is 5,000.

 

[CMDR arti lectus]

Hello Commanders!

Just to let you know, we're also considering information flow (for example having the number of ships destroyed in a system available) as potentially part of the solution to the sniping issue (and I use the term advisedly: I do think it's a bit of an issue as there's basically nothing the target can do apart from fortify every system).

The more I've been thinking about vouchers (and watching the debate), the more I've cooled on the idea. It still has merit, and is good in terms of simplicity, but (despite accusations ) I do worry about the ability of smaller powers to operate and thrive.

My contention with sniping is that it's too one-sided.

Ideally, I would like to reach a solution where being a smaller power has some advantages, or where being a larger power takes more effort, but not to the point that sniping requires.

Where do the smaller powers fit in with any of the solutions ? because so far I only see solutions for larger powers.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Where do the smaller powers fit in with any of the solutions ? because so far I only see solutions for larger powers.

This is what concerns me, as large powers have the advantage with sheer numbers, and in PP that is king.

 

[withnail]

That's definitely the feeling I get.