Powerplay Powerplay needs it's agent spawn rate decreased!

[Enef]

Hello Commander Enef!


Valid points on making large powers more susceptible via temporary CC boosts!

Would it still be such a large issue if we managed to curtail to a greater degree the various methods of sabotage?

I'll be honest I never expected you to ask us of ways to stop the 5C. The way preparation works is currently where the 5th column can sabotage the best. If it was honestly up to me I'd create some kind of ingame leadership interface that works with the reddit community but I understand that you want to keep the game... free? For anyone to do what they want. We've been leading and guiding these powers for 40 weeks now. We've come up with what works and what doesn't work with what you have given us and we have a pretty good idea of how changes will affect the powerplay enviroment.

For instance I'd ask you if you know what weaponised preparations are? What is handshake undermining? How do we control our CC? What is a snipe/merit bomb? If you say no to any of these how does someone who just joined know how it all works? Why should they decide where a power goes for better or worse?

Frankly with powerplay. I just want the known bugs fixed. We've made what you've given us work... mostly. The only powers who have unsurmountable issues with 5th Column activity is Aisling Duval and Hudson. Go take a look at what happened to her power over the past couple of weeks.

 

[Maxximillian]

The general ability for a commander to do 5th Column damage to a power isn't what I'm opposed to. What I dislike about retaining mechanics that can be used for such sabotage is that they are relatively easy to gain access to. We have a time limit for the amount of time a commander must be with a power to gain a weapon or module, but nothing in the way for these potentially damaging items. If we can agree that 5th Column prep is the most damaging thing for the powers then I would suggest that it be an area to focus on. I've been with one power for most of power play yet my ability to influence preparation is only marginally more effective than one that joined the power today, with or without ill intent. It would be helpful if weeks and weeks of solid support for a power provided a way to undo or mitigate the damage done by sabotage. Without a way to remove bad systems, the current situation can be rather devastating to a powers CC economy.

 

[yul7896]

Hello Commander yul7896!


Do mean that the situation would be worse because such a rule would encourage more folk to fly Private Group or Solo?

You have no idea how much we appreciate your exchanges here, truly, many thanks.

I am moreso referring to the toxic vitriol that people spew while debating over PG/Solo vs Open in Powerplay. It is sad to see people hate monger over another's choice to enjoy a game they want to enjoy it. I think having combat forts will make the divide much greater between the Open and Private communities, and general meta-interaction could potentially become worse.

I'm not sure if it would actually encourage people into Private Group, to an extent it may encourage people to come out of PG, and join Open with the rest of us!

 

[Alexander the Grape]

I'll be honest I never expected you to ask us of ways to stop the 5C. The way preparation works is currently where the 5th column can sabotage the best. If it was honestly up to me I'd create some kind of ingame leadership interface that works with the reddit community but I understand that you want to keep the game... free? For anyone to do what they want. We've been leading and guiding these powers for 40 weeks now. We've come up with what works and what doesn't work with what you have given us and we have a pretty good idea of how changes will affect the powerplay enviroment.

For instance I'd ask you if you know what weaponised preparations are? What is handshake undermining? How do we control our CC? What is a snipe/merit bomb? If you say no to any of these how does someone who just joined know how it all works? Why should they decide where a power goes for better or worse?

Frankly with powerplay. I just want the known bugs fixed. We've made what you've given us work... mostly. The only powers who have unsurmountable issues with 5th Column activity is Aisling Duval and Hudson. Go take a look at what happened to her power over the past couple of weeks.

All of the issues you just mentioned (and while Sandro may not necessarily be aware of the idiosyncratic names of the issues, he did bring them up) have been addressed in the "Collusion Piracy and more" post made earlier today, I suggest you read it

 

[Enef]

The general ability for a commander to do 5th Column damage to a power isn't what I'm opposed to. What I dislike about retaining mechanics that can be used for such sabotage is that they are relatively easy to gain access to. We have a time limit for the amount of time a commander must be with a power to gain a weapon or module, but nothing in the way for these potentially damaging items. If we can agree that 5th Column prep is the most damaging thing for the powers then I would suggest that it be an area to focus on. I've been with one power for most of power play yet my ability to influence preparation is only marginally more effective than one that joined the power today, with or without ill intent. It would be helpful if weeks and weeks of solid support for a power provided a way to undo or mitigate the damage done by sabotage. Without a way to remove bad systems, the current situation can be rather devastating to a powers CC economy.

I believe if the more weeks a CMDR stayed with a power the more nominations they gained perhaps is a good idea? 250 nominations just for being rank 5 can be gained in a week. Why should a CMDR who has been there for just a week affect it just as much as someone who has been with the power for 40 weeks?

 

[Alexander the Grape]

You have no idea how much we appreciate your exchanges here, truly, many thanks.

I am moreso referring to the toxic vitriol that people spew while debating over PG/Solo vs Open in Powerplay. It is sad to see people hate monger over another's choice to enjoy a game they want to enjoy it. I think having combat forts will make the divide much greater between the Open and Private communities, and general meta-interaction could potentially become worse.

I'm not sure if it would actually encourage people into Private Group, to an extent it may encourage people to come out of PG, and join Open with the rest of us!

This is purely anecdotal, but from what I've encountered most of the debate comes between Powerplayers in favour of Open bonuses for powerplay and non-powerplayers who are opposed to it, rather than within the Powerplay community itself

 

[yul7896]

The general ability for a commander to do 5th Column damage to a power isn't what I'm opposed to. What I dislike about retaining mechanics that can be used for such sabotage is that they are relatively easy to gain access to. We have a time limit for the amount of time a commander must be with a power to gain a weapon or module, but nothing in the way for these potentially damaging items. If we can agree that 5th Column prep is the most damaging thing for the powers then I would suggest that it be an area to focus on. I've been with one power for most of power play yet my ability to influence preparation is only marginally more effective than one that joined the power today, with or without ill intent. It would be helpful if weeks and weeks of solid support for a power provided a way to undo or mitigate the damage done by sabotage. Without a way to remove bad systems, the current situation can be rather devastating to a powers CC economy.

I like this idea, give some benefit to being with a Power for a long period of time. I am bias though, as I have a full 40 weeks with one Power.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

All of the issues you just mentioned (and while Sandro may not necessarily be aware of the idiosyncratic names of the issues, he did bring them up) have been addressed in the "Collusion Piracy and more" post made earlier today, I suggest you read it

Just glanced over that, a good post. Thanks for pointing it out!!

 

[Enef]

This is purely anecdotal, but from what I've encountered most of the debate comes between Powerplayers in favour of Open bonuses for powerplay and non-powerplayers who are opposed to it, rather than within the Powerplay community itself

Why thank you. I didn't realise this thread existed! It's good to hear all this, sometimes it feels like Powerplay is that side-show that gets ignored. I'm glad we're working on things here! Sorry if I got a little over-excited Sandro, some of us put a lot of time into Powerplay and when you see a dev suggesting something that just seems like a terrible idea from my perspective I responded perhaps a little harshly. Some very interesting ideas but I just do not like this combat fortification idea. If it was players only that would be interesting, NPCs would cause the overfortification issue however.

 

[Miko]

As it stands you could be getting undermined by a PC, MAC or Xbox only group and there's nothing you can do to combat that regardless of what mode they play.

I think it would make sense that control systems award you merits for killing enemy NPC's but I also think you can combat the grind by reducing the spawn rates in high security systems. Less important low security states could indeed be expected to be a free for all with hunting agents spawning non stop. I remember the Anarchy systems from Frontier being absolutely packed with ships after you jumped in. All waiting to get you. Unsafe systems can spawn whatever they like at whatever rate you deem fit, but high security home systems shouldn't be riddled with ENEMY hunters.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commanders!

Just to *really* throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder if any of you remember the concept of "targeted assault" that was mooted a while back. Basically it suggested that Commanders could super focus one undermine attempt per cycle to "take it out" in one go, removing it from a power regardless of any other factors (CC costs, deficit, etc.)

Personally I'm still rather keen on this, as I'd like to see the Powerplay landscape be a shade more volatile.

If we were to go for this idea, the concept of super-fortification might take on a slightly different dimension.

Just spit-balling, of course, but with Powerplay we don't want to rule anything out right now.

 

[Enef]

Hello Commanders!

Just to *really* throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder if any of you remember the concept of "targeted assault" that was mooted a while back. Basically it suggested that Commanders could super focus one undermine attempt per cycle to "take it out" in one go, removing it from a power regardless of any other factors (CC costs, deficit, etc.)

Personally I'm still rather keen on this, as I'd like to see the Powerplay landscape be a shade more volatile.

If we were to go for this idea, the concept of super-fortification might take on a slightly different dimension.

Just spit-balling, of course, but with Powerplay we don't want to rule anything out right now.

Would there be anyway for the defending power to combat this attempt?

If you like volatility you'd probably like the Weaponised Preparations tactic that emerged over the past few months in the Federation-Imperial war. We in the Federation have now put 6-7 expansions into ALD space purposely contesting as many systems as possible to hurt their CC economy. It's been a lot of fun doing so these past few months while ALD has been using collusion piracy as you call it (we call it Shake N Bake ) to shed her own bad systems. Many weeks fortifying all her good systems, then undermining them herself, then undermining her bad systems while we don't touch her. With ALD using collusion piracy to improve her CC balance our only way of hurting it was these weaponised preparations.

 

[Maxximillian]

I remember the targeted assault discussion. Over/Super-fortification is an issue near and dear to my heart. Wasted fortification is a problem for all powers. Grinders delivere many thousands of percent of fortification over the needed amount week in week out. Balancing this is IMO non-trivial. If the sink holes of fortification are removed then we are faced with a likely possibility of blanket fortification of all systems for all powers every week. That said it would be nice if over-fortifying a system had an impact.

 

[CMDR ShodFir]

Hello Commanders!

Just to *really* throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder if any of you remember the concept of "targeted assault" that was mooted a while back. Basically it suggested that Commanders could super focus one undermine attempt per cycle to "take it out" in one go, removing it from a power regardless of any other factors (CC costs, deficit, etc.)

Personally I'm still rather keen on this, as I'd like to see the Powerplay landscape be a shade more volatile.

If we were to go for this idea, the concept of super-fortification might take on a slightly different dimension.

Just spit-balling, of course, but with Powerplay we don't want to rule anything out right now.

Control systems that grinders go to get their merits cycle in and cycle out would be lost with this idea... for example Hudson would lose Atropos in a heartbeat. AF Leporis which was the focus of the most hard fought campaign in powerplay history would be lost... both these systems would be lost to grinders not members of the organised player groups.

Speaking as someone who is part of the leadership of a power that successfully integrates both platforms Powerplay is pretty volatile as it is right now but we are grateful for the chance to be heard right now.

 

[Sandro Sammarco]

Hello Commander Enef!

The defence against targeted assault would be over-fortification. The idea is that because there would only be a limited number of assaults trying to trigger each cycle then those locations might act as magnets for all involved, drawing folk together and increasing the chance of a) direct interaction and b) extreme results (losing a targeted system in one cycle, which could then potentially be taken by opposing powers is fairly drastic).

Clearly there are potential issues. For one, such a feature would likely magnify the effects of sniping, making large powers especially vulnerable. The question there might be: would that be a bad thing? Large powers are very difficult to keep down by sheer size of activity they can throw down (one of the reasons for the relatively static nature of the powers - sure, they go up and down, but often they revert to a "resting position" that is clearly in some part to do with pledged Commander numbers).

I'm really pleased to see aggressive expansions that contest exploited systems - the system rules were set up specifically to support this. That's why I want to limit, as much as possible, fifth column activities - I'd much rather see legible, direct confrontation.

As I have said in another thread though, I understand how folk are sometimes using collusion piracy to combat sabotage at the moment, so I do want to make sure that if we degrade it, there is a more reasonable way to help your power shed rubbish systems.

 

[Miko]

One thing I certainly don't understand is being awarded the same Merits for undertaking a much longer fortification journey.

But, I am not as clued in to the arguments some people are presenting with regards to the deeper elements of Powerplay.

 

[Enef]

Hello Commander Enef!

The defence against targeted assault would be over-fortification. The idea is that because there would only be a limited number of assaults trying to trigger each cycle then those locations might act as magnets for all involved, drawing folk together and increasing the chance of a) direct interaction and b) extreme results (losing a targeted system in one cycle, which could then potentially be taken by opposing powers is fairly drastic).

Clearly there are potential issues. For one, such a feature would likely magnify the effects of sniping, making large powers especially vulnerable. The question there might be: would that be a bad thing? Large powers are very difficult to keep down by sheer size of activity they can throw down (one of the reasons for the relatively static nature of the powers - sure, they go up and down, but often they revert to a "resting position" that is clearly in some part to do with pledged Commander numbers).

I'm really pleased to see aggressive expansions that contest exploited systems - the system rules were set up specifically to support this. That's why I want to limit, as much as possible, fifth column activities - I'd much rather see legible, direct confrontation.

As I have said in another thread though, I understand how folk are sometimes using collusion piracy to combat sabotage at the moment, so I do want to make sure that if we degrade it, there is a more reasonable way to help your power shed rubbish systems.

Thanks once again for replying. Now that I know there is a way to combat this it is certainly an interesting proposal. I myself am from the Winters power, being one of the more numerically smaller powers especially earlier on in powerplay we were one of the first powers to properly utilise and perfect sniping methods. We see sniping as a very viable and good tactic against larger powers. Perhaps due to our stable 2-4 position over the past few months due to success in our campaign against Imperial powers we have gained CMDRs since but sniping is a tactic that is viable for all powers.

So I am further curious. What are your ideas on how these targetted assaults would be "decided"? Is it when the merits are all in at cycle tick and a single system is massively undermined it triggers it being lost I assume? The defending faction will have no prior warning if it is sniped perhaps? This is a very interesting idea and I'd love to know more about your ideas regarding it.

The way preparation works power vs power is very good. It only becomes an issue when you are needing to fight elements inside your own power for what is prepared.

 

[persephonius]

Hello Commander Enef!

The defence against targeted assault would be over-fortification. The idea is that because there would only be a limited number of assaults trying to trigger each cycle then those locations might act as magnets for all involved, drawing folk together and increasing the chance of a) direct interaction and b) extreme results (losing a targeted system in one cycle, which could then potentially be taken by opposing powers is fairly drastic).

Clearly there are potential issues. For one, such a feature would likely magnify the effects of sniping, making large powers especially vulnerable. The question there might be: would that be a bad thing? Large powers are very difficult to keep down by sheer size of activity they can throw down (one of the reasons for the relatively static nature of the powers - sure, they go up and down, but often they revert to a "resting position" that is clearly in some part to do with pledged Commander numbers).

I'm really pleased to see aggressive expansions that contest exploited systems - the system rules were set up specifically to support this. That's why I want to limit, as much as possible, fifth column activities - I'd much rather see legible, direct confrontation.

As I have said in another thread though, I understand how folk are sometimes using collusion piracy to combat sabotage at the moment, so I do want to make sure that if we degrade it, there is a more reasonable way to help your power shed rubbish systems.

I don't agree with this at all. For a small power to snipe a large power to shed a system through this suggested over undermining mechanic, individual players will need to hoard a lot of merits for the duration of the week. The risk of being destroyed, as well as having to be online during the last few minutes of the cycle is a deterrent for commanders to hoard that many merits for that length of time.
.
The problem with this change is that the large powers can brute force remove systems from smaller powers and there is absolutely nothing that they can do to stop it. The difference in the size of some powers is significant, and this change will significantly alter the balance of power in a detrimental way. It may see everyone piling on to the two main powerhouses, as what you can achieve in the other 8 powers will be severely limited.

 

[fergal]

Hello Commanders!

Just to *really* throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder if any of you remember the concept of "targeted assault" that was mooted a while back. Basically it suggested that Commanders could super focus one undermine attempt per cycle to "take it out" in one go, removing it from a power regardless of any other factors (CC costs, deficit, etc.)

Personally I'm still rather keen on this, as I'd like to see the Powerplay landscape be a shade more volatile.

If we were to go for this idea, the concept of super-fortification might take on a slightly different dimension.

Just spit-balling, of course, but with Powerplay we don't want to rule anything out right now.

The systems that are "super-fortified" right now are not done for any strategic reasons, and allowing undermining to do a targeted assault will not move these fortification merits to a more useful place.
Fortifying is generally described by most players as the most "grindy" part of PP, this sounds like it would require more fortifications to be completed each week.

I'd prefer a more straight forward approach to more systems being lost, if a system is undermined and not fortified, it gets flagged to be lost the next cycle, lets call this "revolt" not "turmoil" since that is the word used for the existing mechanic.

If the revolting system is undermined again the next week, without again being fortified, it should be lost.

This would make each power continue to need to balance their CC balance each week to avoid Turmoil, and also require different targets to be fortified depending on the previous weeks undermining.

On a logical level, if a system is undermined 2 weeks in a row, without being fortified in either week, why would it stay as a control system of a power that can't directly protect it?

 

[Rubbernuke]

The systems that are "super-fortified" right now are not done for any strategic reasons, and allowing undermining to do a targeted assault will not move these fortification merits to a more useful place.
Fortifying is generally described by most players as the most "grindy" part of PP, this sounds like it would require more fortifications to be completed each week.

I'd prefer a more straight forward approach to more systems being lost, if a system is undermined and not fortified, it gets flagged to be lost the next cycle, lets call this "revolt" not "turmoil" since that is the word used for the existing mechanic.

If the revolting system is undermined again the next week, without again being fortified, it should be lost.

This would make each power continue to need to balance their CC balance each week to avoid Turmoil, and also require different targets to be fortified depending on the previous weeks undermining.

On a logical level, if a system is undermined 2 weeks in a row, without being fortified in either week, why would it stay as a control system of a power that can't directly protect it?

Please, do this! Its simple and would work.

 

[Malcolm R.]

Hello Commander Arry!

Additionally we're looking at getting fortification for killing Power ships in control systems for your power.

Ok I am going to put it out there right now if you implement this I am going to stop all my fortification in a transport anaconda, now the only ship that’s is useful for fortification is the cutter if you want to do transport why? Let me tell you why.

When you do fortification to get merits fast you have to fast-tracking this cost money. Also you have to travel in Mahon this can be as much as 140 ly each direction. In short you get close to the 30 min mark before you are back to the system you want to fortify so you just wait for those free merits. So in short you get 2 trips every hour. For me that’s 850 merits (432 on one trip and 418 on the other). The problem is this costs 7,5 mill so this have to be gotten back somehow lets make this easy and say it takes one hour to get this back unless again you got the cutter. It might take you more it might take you less, but for this lest just say one. How many of you can get more form undermining? With a full wing getting more than 425 merits per hour is easy so why shod I ever do transport for fortification again? In short the only times I am going to use transport from then on is expansions and preps. (This is also why combat expansions are so much stronger than transport, ok I can do 3-5 trips every hour on those, but then I don’t get any freebees so the making money time increase to).

The first reason people want the ships they destroy to count are because of the constant interdictions by ships they get noting for destroying. So making it a player only thing is useless.
The second reason is that people that don’t have big ships and let’s be frank her unless you got a type 9, anaconda, corvette or cutter you don’t do much fortification maybe the python. If for no other reason than that you don’t have the cash to throw at it. But there are still a lot of people that want to be useful for their power and undermining some other power don’t really help your much. Opposing expansions might help, but not really if its 300ly from you capital. So you can’t really do much to help your power.

Here are some suggestions of how to make fortifications by combat work.

1. Only give 15 merits for every kill. You get less but your power gets more. People that only wants the merits won’t to it so you don’t get the girder problem and it also makes sense that killing them should not give as much.
2. These merits have to be delivered at the capitol! If they can be delivered at any control system than it’s going to increase the merits per hour even more as I don’t have to leave the system in order to deliver the merits. The flip side of this is people fortifying in combat vessels without jump range. They might use a transport type 6. But that’s a gamble if there are players or just a big ship interdicting them.
3. Only possible in systems that are already 100% undermined. This one is a bit more complicated and might be hard to explain to players (why am I not getting any merits). It also adds an interesting twist on where to fortify. In short you send transport ships to fortify systems to prevent sniping and combat pilots to shore up where you are under attack. Personally I like the fact that you can do sniping so this is ok with me.

As an ending note if the bonuses for playing in open are added at the same time there is not even a question. I get more merits from fortifications and I can do it a lot safer than in a transport vessel, especially as a Mahon player, if players start camping gateway. I can wait to deliver until we got a combat wing clearing out gateway and I can fight them of while delivering the cargo. In short I fully support Martin Schou comment in that thread (page 3, coment 33).

Hello Commanders!

Just to *really* throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I wonder if any of you remember the concept of "targeted assault" that was mooted a while back. Basically it suggested that Commanders could super focus one undermine attempt per cycle to "take it out" in one go, removing it from a power regardless of any other factors (CC costs, deficit, etc.)

As long as there are people just grinding merits in order getting the rank 5 bonuses because it’s the fastest way of getting money in the game I say hell no. One has to wonder why it’s just some powers that have big problem with over fortification. We in Mahon only really have one system and it just gets a few times the amount needed to fortify it. So in short unless you balance the rank 5 bonuses so that people that only play PP in for the pp. In short not to get the rank 5 bounty bonuses to get cash. There is no way in hell I want this system implemented. It’s not going to be this great sniping tool used by organized groups it’s just going to be grinders going from one system to another as fast as they disappears from powers control.