I like to picture myself as the Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall) of the Kumo Crew. X-DThing is, I always pick hero over villain, paragon over renegade, etc. At least with PP I can be the "hero" for my Empress / President. Randomly killing people wild-west style makes me the villain, and I'm just too nice a guy to be bad
Powerplay Whatever happened to the Powerplay Open only Proposal (POOP) ?
- Thread starter zarrazee
- Start date
As per Kumo tradition I harvest my enemies and convert the unworthy into Kumo Burgers.
Well, undermining seems quite a belligerant behaviour to me.
A lot to respond to there, and i'm in the middle of constructing a wardrobe, so i'll be brief and just pick up on this one.
It depends on how you view the actions taken.
So yeah, combat actions which involve the PP equivalent of piracy, or warzones, that is belligerent.
But the vast majority of activities are not. They are just deliveries.
If i dare to use a real world example as an analogy, its like killing the DHL guy who is delivering a ton of Conservative propaganda material to the Tory local office for distribution. Now, i know some people might like to bop the people responsible for this sort of thing, but you're not even going to kill the guy who is stuffing your letterbox full of Tory/Labour/Liberal/Democricon/Republicrat propoganda.
Those actions, the vast majority of PP efforts, are not combative or overly belligerent. Its just deliveries.
Hence why i say that it seems a bit wrong from a lore perspective. Of course, this is just my opinion, but it does have an impact on why i feel this way about PP. Now, if the powers were openly at war with each other, then that propoganda is no longer like the local party byelections, but more like how during WW2 the military would spread propoganda via radio or letter bombs or whatever they used.... but that isn't how PP is presented. Or at least, not my interpretation of how its presented.
Defensive actions are, like fortifying. And it's not piracy: it's plain killing tons of ships. It used to be piracy, then people exploited that mechanic, so FDev turned it to plain killing.
Powerplay is a genocidal war (as it works right now). So not the "peaceful/political game" you think it is.
Not really, the expansions dont work that way. each control bubble's income/loss is affected negatively by overlaps within its 15ly radius from other control bubbles, and by the distance to capital. Having other control bubbles close-ish by can be convenient, & help limit weaponised expansions by other factions, but it doesnt directly help you expand anywhere else, except as a base of operations to haul publicity from.
I pay backhanders to the Thought Police to round up Wrongthinkers double-quick so I can flingem in my cargo hold (passenger cabins are too good for them, apparently) and haul them at high-G back to the Capital for ReEducation. On arrival I pour the liquid remains out of the cargo-hold and pay someone to sluice it down a bit. I dont know what they do with the mess, maybe they make Gestapo Gespacho or somethin. Aint no educatin what I drop off, not the way I fly xP
Huh, turns out I do dabble in RP afterall. TiL.
Last edited:
LOL, got to +1 you for this, nice answer
Because PP isn't just about pew pew, it has a logistical side to it.
I'm quite happy to be pottering about in my trusty cargo ship dropping off supplies etc in the background.
Just like in any conflict, the supply chain needs to work.
So I can sit in my PG, moving stuff about while having a beer and a chat.
Which you can currently do without forcing everyone else who doesn't want it, into open.
Right now, open is a choice. Just like PP is a choice, exploration is a choice, passenger missions are a choice.
Removing choices doesn't help any game. And this is a game, that people can replace.
Less choices = less fun = less players.
Which is why I keep saying look at the bigger picture and quit with the tunnel vision.
Open Only anything, only helps a handful of people and not the wider community.
Making PP its own mode would still only benefit a few, but at least its honest and a fair way of doing it.
Which I support.
Then if they also make the PP mode override block / friend lists as I suggested, that solves the issue of people just blocking you.
So Open/PG/Solo would continue to use those lists as expected, CQC / PP could just ignore them and encourage pew pew as well as other gameplay.
What is funny is you say mode agnostic Powerplay is a grindfest now, then ask me how it won't turn into a greater one... Yet nothing is making it a greater one, but you seem to think it will magically turn into one.
As for Man United or Chelseas (am a Wolfes fan myself and hoping they will win against Southampton ) apparently you've never heard of "throwing the game" or "Match fixing" where players will intentionally sabotage their own teams. Sometimes for money, sometimes for strange reasons, other times they want a different ranking (as happened with the Summer Olympics if I remember correctly). And I am sorry that you failed to notice the sarcasm in my comment, I was and still am throwing the "griefiing is part of the game and ok" line that has been thrown at PVErs and fed to people over and over again back in the faces of many who support griefing yet complain about 5c. What is the phrase I keep hearing? "Get Gud" or some stupid crap like that?
With the infrastructure of the game 32 I think is the max and even then it is so laggy do you think you will actually be able to battle what so ever? And PP as it is still offers the same potential to enable proper team based tactical combat.
I also wonder why you keep thinking a side as a "team" a side is a group of teams that have the same goal pretty much. Yes your group was doing BGS work for a month, but it was not your "power" doing it mainly because I highly doubt you contacted everyone in your power and got 95% of them to do what you were doing. There is also no way for you to know who all is in your power. Now did you do something and others didn't notice?. It is quite possible and congratulations... but it wasn't a Power coordinated effort, it was as team or maybe a few teams. And it definatly is not an excuse to ruin Power play by making it for your mode only.
"If you think about it, it's the same for every game mechanic in the game: not everybody is involved in exploration, or mining, or thargoids, or BGS, the game is large and there's place for any kind of playstyle, but apparently for the type I'm asking to there can be no place"
Oh I do think about it and you are right not everyone explores, not everyone mines, or fights thargoids (never seen one yet myself), or fights, or BGS. And you are right that the game is large and there is a place for any kind of playstyle.. including yours as it is allowed in Open. But one thing you failed to think about in your comments here and in what all you wrote above... EVERY single one of those things that people can do, they can do in all three Modes. And guess what else can be played in all three Modes... Powerplay. Yet some like you want to pull it away and make it Mode Specific unlike anything else in the game.
I've gotta hit the brakes here because this comment is slightly unfair.
Normally Open Only is pushed by "griefers" or "gankers" who pretend to be PvP'ers involved with Power Play.
But all they want is easy fodder for their guns because they don't have the skill or talent to face real PvP'ers.
Which the comment "someone like you" normally fits the bill rather well, hence why I'd use it with some folks myself.
But I'm sure Voronwe and RubberNuke are more concerned with Power Play as a whole (I followed RN in the old forums, so I know they want the best for PP), they don't fit the mould of the usual folks we "debate" with over Open Only content. So I believe they don't fit the bill for that generalisation.
It doesn't stop the fact they are wrong or that I agree with you, but respect where respect is due.
They are not PvP trolls looking for cheap kills and using PP as the excuse.
[Disclaimer: I could be wrong, I'm on the beer currently and drunk me thinks everyone is nice... sober me doesn't, but he aint here right now so let's pretend drunk me is right
)Ok I'm drunk right now all the same because of time zones and because a friend of mine came back from London to say hello and... wait, waht are we talking about? after too many beers, a couple of wiskeys and a couple of negroni cocktails that's simply too much, but I understand there's only as much drunk people as I am right now and tomorrow I'm gonna chuckle about that so... let's stop any kind of negative feedback and let's see what's going to happen. Damn, I just hope I wrote something even understandable to people passing by.I've gotta hit the brakes here because this comment is slightly unfair.
Normally Open Only is pushed by "griefers" or "gankers" who pretend to be PvP'ers involved with Power Play.
But all they want is easy fodder for their guns because they don't have the skill or talent to face real PvP'ers.
Which the comment "someone like you" normally fits the bill rather well, hence why I'd use it with some folks myself.
But I'm sure Voronwe and RubberNuke are more concerned with Power Play as a whole (I followed RN in the old forums, so I know they want the best for PP), they don't fit the mould of the usual folks we "debate" with over Open Only content. So I believe they don't fit the bill for that generalisation.
It doesn't stop the fact they are wrong or that I agree with you, but respect where respect is due.
They are not PvP trolls looking for cheap kills and using PP as the excuse.
[Disclaimer: I could be wrong, I'm on the beer currently and drunk me thinks everyone is nice... sober me doesn't, but he aint here right now so let's pretend drunk me is right
Can I just say that we should stop this stupid open/pvt/solo feud and let people have room for their favourite playstyle? I don't care about anybody watchint netflix while they play, sincerly, I find that personally boring but who cares, the galaxy's big enough, just let us play with people that want to play this game the way we want play it, .
PS Tomorrow's I'm gonna laugh a lot about what I wrote now. I only hope I was good enough to be understandable. And I opened another thread about that! I used to be a far worse moderator back in my days, it's a miracle this thread has never been already closed, to be honest.
This massed fight looks pretty smooth to me....
You can interdict players returning from wing fights, intercept transports etc right now unless the other side simply swap to solo or PG for 100% deliveries - then tactics go out the window. Its then back to outgrinding each other which is not tactics at all. If everyone has to stay in the same mode then you must use your skills and your pledges to help fend off rivals who then become obstacles to overcome.
It was our power doing it, because like all other powers we have BGS teams running, except this time it was offensive rather than defensive. Discord organization is a wonderful thing, you should try it! The way to judge really is in the outcome, and it went like clockwork.
Very true.
No, because its very easy to see problems happening from all the scouting and UI feedback.
Since the known dedicated groups and squadrons do all the heavy lifting and main work of my Power, I can pretty much say it was a Power coordinated effort. From my time at Utopia and from chatting to other Powers you know how module shoppers work (mainly by fortifying the closest system) so its easy to spot and discount.
My power works in Open mode, so I know their answer. And how do you know that people think like you do, do you play or run Powerplay Discords or other PP related forums?
OK, here it is broken down:
Current:
Powers can fortify in safety, and guarantee fortification almost 100%. This makes forting a time x capacity grind, with no outside forces being able to influence it. Bubble is stable due to consolidation.
With Sandros proposal, minus Open only: Powers can fortify in safety, and guarantee fortification almost 100%. This makes forting a time x capacity grind, with no outside forces being able to influence it. With no cap on fortification, it becomes an unending battle of grinding the highest and hardest. Bubble is stable due to consolidation.
With Sandros proposal, with Open only: Powers cannot move in safety any longer as other players can freely intercept others. Haulers have to be smaller as they cannot min/max, roles such as system overwatch come into play. With Sandros uncapped fortification systems can become desperate battlegrounds where haulers have to get through to keep ahead, putting pressure on defenders. This makes fortifying uncertain, leading to more turmoils, smaller powers and more instability.
And from what I remember match fixing is illegal and cheating, so thats a poor choice of example.
What is this about exactly- Powerplay or some rant about something else? How am I supporting griefiing by saying Powerplay would benefit from Open?
Last edited:
Logistics should be more PQ 17 and less Tesco pottering, otherwise its safe as houses and promotes stagnation (as I pointed about above in an earlier answer).
Powerplay is going no-where currently, because it tries to please everyone and fails. Both activities (haul more and shoot more) are bland, and promote grind.
I think you are partially right when it comes to talking about choice- but, it should be about playstyle choices and Open Powerplay ironically gives payers more choice.
1:1 Arena PvP, CQC
Direct tactical team PvP conflict, Open PP <a new choice
Multi mode tactical team conflict, BGS
The rest of the game
...and so on. This mode is giving the game something new its never had before. Its not correct you say we have it now, because people can dissapear into PGs and Solo.
Agreed.
Unless I completely understood Sandro's proposal, this isn't the case. There is no "guaranteed fortification." Once the trigger has been met, a system can still be undermined by exceeding the amount of fortification by 100%. In systems actively being undermined, it will be a grinding contest, where the winner is decided by the number of fortifiers, relative to the number of underminers. This will be true regardless of the mode they play in. While it is true one can maximize productivity in Solo/Private group when fortifying, the same will be true for underminers in Solo/PG. Meanwhile, the significant majority of players in Open will continue to be just as effective as they always were, just with additional layers of gameplay they enjoy.
Conversely, undermining control systems that haven't met the fortification trigger has become easier, because the undermining trigger is now 100% greater than the total amount of fortification, rather than current system where a trigger needs to be met. Small scale undermining can be successful if a system isn't being fortified at all, because the fortifiers are busy bringing in more supplies to systems under large scale attack.
Under the old system, a Power expanded to a size determined by the number of fortifiers they had, because fortification was guaranteed at 100%. Under Sandro's proposal, a Power can only expand to a size determined by the number of fortifiers relative to the number of underminers attacking it. There is no such thing as 100% guaranteed fortification, because a system can always be undermined more.
A Power heavy in combat oriented players would find themselves unable to hold the same size territory that they were under the old system, due to the higher fortification requirements of their most profitable systems, which will naturally be attacked by other Powers. Conversely, a Power heavy in hauling oriented players might find themselves unable to be as aggressive as they used to be, because the fortification period never ends. There is no switching roles once all the profitable systems have been fortified, because their most profitable systems are still vulnerable. If they want to free up transportation capacity for other activities, such as preparation, they'll need to shed their least profitable systems to do so.
This is the same as above, only the reduced number of players (primarily the less combat oriented players, aka the fortifiers) means even fewer systems will be able to reach the fortification trigger, and thus be protected against small scale undermining.
Rubbernuke said:
With Sandros proposal, minus Open only: Powers can fortify in safety, and guarantee fortification almost 100%. This makes forting a time x capacity grind, with no outside forces being able to influence it. With no cap on fortification, it becomes an unending battle of grinding the highest. Bubble is stable due to consolidation.
He's saying 'fortification to almost 100% is guaranteed.' If you read it in context of his comparison with current Powerplay rules, and bear in mind he refers to the increased grind battle, its quite clear what he means. I think the confusion is due to thinking the fortification triggers were being removed in the proposal. They weren't IIRC; the "Undermined if Undermining = fortification + 100%" rule only kicks in when both undermining and fortification are above their respective triggers.
Conducted in Open it's great for creating contested hot-spots in a conflict that demands intensive cooperation & tactics. Given a Solo/PG META opt-out, it becomes a more intesive grind-battle than we have even now. This is I believe the point Rubbernuke was making, which seems absolutely sound to me.
Ok I am back and I promise I'm sober now.
I think that what we want to discuss is if we would like to see competitive efforts go up because of number of players involved and how much they grind a particular task (even a much more variable range of tasks, BGS-like) with huge numbers competing because of that or if we want smaller numbers achieved by a competitive environment. I don't say that one would be much more enjoyable than another because we go in a "personal likings" field, but the mechanism you are proposing is already there in the BGS for example, when two PMFs collide (considering how big the bubble is it's rare, not impossible, my very own PMF clashed with another PMF in the past but we never saw them because we discovered after that they were an XBox faction).
So: my opinion is that since we already have that kind of gameplay mechanic for potentially opposing factions, what the game lacks is an environment that makes the other kind of gameplay, the oppositive with real players threatening you, with the human factor that makes everything more unpredictable, which is already possible but as a personal choice and a very uneffective one. It would be harsh, it wouldn't be pleasant, but many other mechanics in the game are not very accessible by every type of player (an example I already did many times: thargoids).
For this kind of discussion I opened another thread by the way, can we move all of this in there? I think it could be useful to reorganize our ideas, I really believe in the brainstorming process by the way, but we should all be well-disposed to discuss other point of views.
I think that what we want to discuss is if we would like to see competitive efforts go up because of number of players involved and how much they grind a particular task (even a much more variable range of tasks, BGS-like) with huge numbers competing because of that or if we want smaller numbers achieved by a competitive environment. I don't say that one would be much more enjoyable than another because we go in a "personal likings" field, but the mechanism you are proposing is already there in the BGS for example, when two PMFs collide (considering how big the bubble is it's rare, not impossible, my very own PMF clashed with another PMF in the past but we never saw them because we discovered after that they were an XBox faction).
So: my opinion is that since we already have that kind of gameplay mechanic for potentially opposing factions, what the game lacks is an environment that makes the other kind of gameplay, the oppositive with real players threatening you, with the human factor that makes everything more unpredictable, which is already possible but as a personal choice and a very uneffective one. It would be harsh, it wouldn't be pleasant, but many other mechanics in the game are not very accessible by every type of player (an example I already did many times: thargoids).
For this kind of discussion I opened another thread by the way, can we move all of this in there? I think it could be useful to reorganize our ideas, I really believe in the brainstorming process by the way, but we should all be well-disposed to discuss other point of views.
Last edited:
When I talk about "guaranteed fortification" I mean the rate of cargo loss to delivery. In solo and PG is 100% delivery rate. In open that would be far less and make hauling very important.
This is the worst case grind though, as it simply is grind + with all modes. The easiest way will be the most used, which is solo as you have little to no distractions to maximise delivery speed- for example in systems with distant stations solo and PG would be ideal as these are potential interdiction areas in Open (the longer being more dangerous).
This is a good point, and I wish Sandro or FD would clarify it. This is what he wrote:
• A control system that is undermined by 100% more than the fortification value will be undermined even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met
Reasoning: We feel that Powerplay rules tend towards stagnation and status quo, which is not something we intended. Despite all the effort in the world, a power that fortifies enough, against values set by the game rather than in opposition to attack, can remain safe. This change allows sheer force of effort (or numbers) to guarantee systems end up being undermined, making deficit more likely. And to stop this happening, a power must directly compete against its enemies.
Does Sandro mean the fortification / UM trigger is the value we have now? If so then undermining has to be above that to start the 'race'. Otherwise, what is the point of these triggers to begin with alongside these changes? I assumed it was the fort value after + 100% extra. So if a system has a fort trigger of 3000 and the UM done is 6000 then its undermined until forting raises the floor again.
The doubt about that might come from the 'even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met' part, which does imply that reaching the trigger itself is not important. I suppose it comes down to what Sandro meant by 'value' as there are a few values that are used.
The other upshot from that is it makes triggers as well as the consolidation bonus (and the corresponding BGS work to make systems favourable / unfavourable) redundant.
Another point is that Powers routinely (as in religiously) check the Powerplay tab for UM. If indeed UM is like you say then Powers would simply fortify it rather than ignore it, and up until reaching the 100% trigger there would be no real difference in workload. There would be no case other than a controlled turmoil or if the CC cost is small where a power would leave a system. In addition, if Powers contracted they'd have a glut of CC to burn anyway, and may choose to leave it- only the largest would care because they have little or negative CC balances.
This is true. However (which would be the same in Open) you cannot snipe UM any longer (due to station PP reports) so it will wind up favouring the defender again unless you have a lot of winged up attackers. And since you can see what they are doing numerically you can quickly counter with safe and reliable fortification that cannot be stopped. An attacker has to do an awful lot of UMing to counter one 750 merit capacity T-9 running A to B, and with the new void opal mining / credit inflation money is not an issue any longer. Plus, if your power is vigilant it will simply deliver to that system anyway to top it up.
Most, if not all powers do not have a distinction between hauling and fighting, in most cases everyone does double duty and does one after the other. Powerplay players these days do everything and anything to keep themselves afloat.
Open adds more spinning plates in the form of player obstacles and uncertainty. The whole point is to make fortification a luxury, so you have to look at your situation and apply it sparingly- or focus it at the same time as making your opponents do the same. Since fortifiers are so precious it would encourage others to protect them, or, modify ships to become combat / trucking hybrids disrupting the distinction between hauling and combat metas.
Last edited:
Ok I am back and I promise I'm sober now.
Does your head hurt as well?
I'm supposed to play MTG later and I can barely see, let along think about card combos.
This getting older malarky isn't as fun as I thought it was and this forum orange is darn bright