Which Power are you undermining? Me and Rubbernuke are from different Powers so you'd be doing well if it could annoy both of us
Powerplay Faction: Felicia Winters Powerplay Solo vs. Open
- Thread starter Mechman43
- Start date
Unlike now, which is paradise?
Currently its too easy to fortify- with consolidation + low triggers its almost impossible to crack a prepared power.
You are thinking one dimensionally. Either you get a faster ship, get together with others, or mix and match.
"haulers will have to play your game and fit the HRPs you say they should, they can no longer play the game they want."
What is this game of yours? Easy hauling? Like I said above Powerplay through its lack of development has virtually no NPC pushback, making hauling impossible to mess up and consequently make large powers possible. Large powers = full bubble, and nowhere to go.
Powerplay needs to make hauling harder to make supporting large powers harder and not routine. It then puts the onus on your skills and ship as well ass organisation and teamwork.
To you maybe. Others want to play Powerplay properly and not for the module. Plus, if all you want is the module my ideas and Sandros make it much easier than now.
Have you even read the proposal, or what Sandro suggested?
? I don't really get what you want to say here. Attacking is part of Powerplay- it should not be seen as bad when thats part of the job.
More ideas=
A choice:
If you are pledged, rebuy costs being destroyed by other pledges would be 20% of what they are (so a 1 mil cred rebuy pledged is 200,000 rebuy)
Or
If your Trust value is high (say, 10) each Open cargo run could pay for one potential rebuy. So for each cargo unit which has a flat value (say 1 million) , with a trust of 10 on delivery you get 10 million in cash. Since credits can't buy cargo, you can't use the cash to 5C the power. Those with a negative trust value get no bonus, so only get a million on delivery.
A choice:
If you are pledged, rebuy costs being destroyed by other pledges would be 20% of what they are (so a 1 mil cred rebuy pledged is 200,000 rebuy)
Or
If your Trust value is high (say, 10) each Open cargo run could pay for one potential rebuy. So for each cargo unit which has a flat value (say 1 million) , with a trust of 10 on delivery you get 10 million in cash. Since credits can't buy cargo, you can't use the cash to 5C the power. Those with a negative trust value get no bonus, so only get a million on delivery.
BlastinAndCruisin
Banned
Best way for Fdev to handle it. Is create an offline single player mode unattached to the multiplayer system. Then a multiplayer mode where you can only scale, earn money, rep all in the same place. Both separate from each other.
Solo single player offline. Or multiplayer. Non transferable between the two.
Then the solo player can do their thing. And the multiplayer can thrive like its supposed to.
Solo single player offline. Or multiplayer. Non transferable between the two.
Then the solo player can do their thing. And the multiplayer can thrive like its supposed to.
I dont think reducing rebuys is a good idea here, it disproportionately aids combat ships over haulers, since haulers have the cargo & Trust to lose, (which affects max cargo amount on at least the next run? Not sure if that made the cut xP) The attacker stands to lose next-to nothing.
I like the separation of credits from merits. The VO goldrush has made the credit-balance economy of war a thing of the past. You cant pressurise a power by hitting their players in the pocket, and needing to maintain a 'war chest' is a thing of the past. So awarding 10mill for a max-trust cutter run seems reasonable. More than that and you might get people pledging for the money, and that would be just awful .. srs tho, Powerplay needs to attract players on its own virtues, not for money or weapons, that just creates resentment, as we've seen with PP modules.
Fair points!
"Powerplay needs to attract players on its own virtues"
This is very true- my thinking was though that the 50 mil payout for R5 (and money rewards) was now seriously antiquated, and that cargo should be free if you are in open (since you'll be risking more).
I am also trying to set it up so that hauling is the most lucrative of the PP jobs, but is the hardest since it is a central pillar of your power- killing is easier but less profitable (say half or a quarter) and since credits and cargo are separate we can bring back piracy, and do it safely to old levels- so a power might offer 2:1 in stolen goods- with a high trust factor you'd net 20 million or so (so encouraging it) while it can't be easily gamed because the loser gets lower trust.
Maybe trust needs a balance between jobs though.
Everything is unbalanced & can't be balanced for a number of reasons not least because everyone is undermining using an exploit. As such, Opposing & Undermining need to go to CZs imho whilst Expansions should just shift over to either combat or hauling for everyone (it's probably the only way it will be able to have any sense of balance).
CMDR Justinian Octavius
CMDR Justinian Octavius
Why not both for any power?
Yes! Completely agree with all of that, ..except for undermining going to CZs. I dont see how it's practical to implement for every potential UM target system, and it would be a shame to lose the interdiction mechanic at least. That is one of the more engaging parts of PP imo, and is probably the most involved bit of gameplay of any of the core powerplay gameplay loops. Sadly it offers such a low merit yield compared to what's available. How about making it the only game in town for undermining ?
A simple potential fix to do this, would be to remove PowerPlay ships from every situation except SC, relevant CZs, and around stations for flavour. (and FML add a variety of NPC chatter that reflects the players' rank & pledge history.)
From many previous discussions on here about OOPP & similar, it seems a lot of non-PP people want rid of the PP NPCs, and oops posted instead of edited Ah whatever, thatl do
Last edited:
Your optimism regarding PP and FD is boundless! I don't know how you do it.
I don't either, really.
I don't want what you want in regards to PP, but damn, for your perservenace and hope, in a way i hope you get what you want.
Aww, is someone salty that their zombie power expansions aren't working out every single turn when at least five times as many people oppose them?
And how long have people been hauling billions in cargo because of one money exploit or another?
Im okay with cutting off beacon UMing, but interdicted NPCs need a huge increase (4 or 5 times) in value to the effort involved with killing them. Otherwise there will be zero parity between some hauling cutter with 700+ tons and people trying to undermine.
Or, we could leave beacon UMing in.
All this is well balanced with open benefits, best way to cancel beacon exploit is to stop underminers doing their work, seems like IHC dont even consider this, and it makes me sad.
It's common sense, anyone can see the problem, but you know is FDEV who develop the game so sense doesn't apply to them.
The problem is one of balance. My observation (and I'm not alone in thinking it) is that Powerplay is far too stable and that easy hauling has led to eventual stagnation. The inclusion of consolidation has also hastened this.
My view is that hauling has to be harder mainly to a) drive more co-operation b) promote smaller, faster builds over larger ships and c) make large powers harder to maintain. That way a large power is easier to attack in a more natural way thats consistent.
Overall, if a power is more inherently unstable you can then make beacon UM harder and less cheesy maybe. Having this segment in Open and everything inbound would do this.
Exploit? Pretty sure that's been called out before, and FDev has always said "working as intended". And don't pretend like certain powers don't take advantage of it in the same way, but in solo/PG where no one can stop them. There's also reasonable accusations that certain powers utilize methods that go beyond exploits, pushing towards the realm of cheating. That's without even getting into 5C (again).
So yeah, it's unbalanced for a lot of reasons, most of which could be fixed by OOPP. You don't seem interested in fixing things. You seem like you'd rather fog the issue. It makes me start to wonder what you have to gain from that...
I don't recall as such but happy to be corrected. However, I would be surprised if repeatedly exiting SC into blank space about 125km behind the nav beacon to force spawn ships is an intended feature of the game.
If the turmoil system is changed to per system and you then move Opposing & Undermining over to CZs it is a at easier to balance against hauling because you have a controlled environment in which to increase the amount of Power Bonds you get per ship kill. It is a lot more difficult to balance hauling for the simple reason that you really can't decrease the minimum number you can collect without restricting participation in the activity itself (which for some commanders would mean also restricting them from Powerplay as that is the only activity they do).
CMDR Justinian Octavius
Per system turmoil would suck. That would just be Zach Hudson fort-racing Sol each and every turn forever, while the whole galaxy undermines it from PeeGee. Why? Because it's profitable for the entire galaxy, and who wouldn't want it?
So, Horrible idea.
Better Idea: Sandro's proposal that a control system is either Forted or Undermined based on who has the higher numbers there. Triggers are calculated from the control systems only, and turmoil mechanics are more or less the same.
So, Horrible idea.
Better Idea: Sandro's proposal that a control system is either Forted or Undermined based on who has the higher numbers there. Triggers are calculated from the control systems only, and turmoil mechanics are more or less the same.
Which combo of proposals are you looking at there? Ive seen what youve commented on, posted before, but not in this discussion (yet?)
Maybe im the only one getting a bit confused by all the variations, but it might help to combine Rubbernuke's (etc) additions with Sandro's, all done in the latter style so it's all gathered in one place for easy reference & comparison. .. and a separate thread posted for feedback, before, all being well? a finalised version is posted in Suggestions & forwarded to PP leaders & Fdev for review.