Powerplay A word on 5c, and the state of Powerplay

[bvncbvnc]

I find this interesting. Coming from a power that almost 5c’d grom to oblivion while cackling about it in system chat. Meanwhile grom commanders put in hours of dedicated work to undo the 5c. the torval expansions that contested imperial space despite being staunch allies. Or shall we mention the HIP 1572 preparation that got pushed up to a record breaking high of 500k merits during a federal assault and always has high numbers during federal assaults. Shall we also mention a certain federal leader that got banned from the game. Or what about the notorious ganker group borann boys(most of whom got banned and were even apart of federal leadership) and now plag, borann boys 2.0, that aids and has aided federal pvp pilots.

In conclusion, despite what noise comes from the FUC propaganda machine. All other powers know the disregard FUC have shown towards agreements, conventions, fair play resolutions, and civilized conversation. It would be nice to have a peaceful galaxy, but you all never learn; so we have to make sure to protect ourselves against the galaxy bully. If only FUC could follow and imitate the conduct of The Fatherhood squadron(another sizeable federal aligned entity) the galaxy would be a different place than it is now.

 

[QueensPawn]

This is an incredibly disingenuous argument to make. The blanket fortification that occurred last December was achieved entirely through the considerable efforts of our own commanders - something you were collectively well aware of.

You blanket fortified all your systems? Why would you do that? If we had had the manpower at the time to blanket UM you, we could've started this turmoil ourselves after that blanket fortification.

Regardless, I'd like to respectfully suggest that Hudson's hauling directors, with years of experience overseeing the fortification of Hudson's systems, know better than you what our randoms are (and aren't) capable of.

Appeal to authority is the last bastion of people with no evidence. Besides, any advantage in terms of experience you may have (which is debatable given how often you have turnover from elections) is negated by the bias created by the PR win you would get from a successful 5C accusation. A biased authority is an unreliable authority.

I assume you've somehow missed the myriad of posts offering constructive feedback as to how to best improve Powerplay and its 5c predicament... believe it or not, there's quite a bit of constructive discussion that can be had from a thread like this.

There have been a few, yes. but it was not the original topic of this post, nor were they the primary focus of the thread at any point. If we want to make a new thread entirely built around discussing ways that Frontier can change powerplay to limit the effectiveness of 5C or eliminate it entirely with no mention of specific accusations, then I will support that entirely. We have our own 5C problem that we would love to see eliminated.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

I find this interesting. Coming from a power that almost 5c’d grom to oblivion while cackling about it in system chat. Meanwhile grom commanders put in hours of dedicated work to undo the 5c. the torval expansions that contested imperial space despite being staunch allies. Or shall we mention the HIP 1572 preparation that got pushed up to a record breaking high of 500k merits during a federal assault and always has high numbers during federal assaults.

I don't know who told you these things but you've been misinformed. We have nothing to do with all this.

Shall we also mention a certain federal leader that got banned from the game.

The ban you're mentioning had nothing to do with cheating or taking an unfair advantage in game.

Or what about the notorious ganker group borann boys(most of whom got banned and were even apart of federal leadership) and now plag, borann boys 2.0, that aids and has aided federal pvp pilots.

If you want to see it this way, we persuaded a few of those naughty Borann Boys to join us and stop terrorizing random pilots and focus in legitimate powerplay pvp action instead.

In conclusion, despite what noise comes from the FUC propaganda machine. All other powers know the disregard FUC have shown towards agreements, conventions, fair play resolutions, and civilized conversation.

You can call it propaganda if you want but Hudson is very obviously being 5C'ed. Your post could be understood as a justification for this 5C. You don't think all the things you've written justify sabotaging your opponent, right?

It would be nice to have a peaceful galaxy, but you all never learn; so we have to make sure to protect ourselves against the galaxy bully. If only FUC could follow and imitate the conduct of The Fatherhood squadron(another sizeable federal aligned entity) the galaxy would be a different place than it is now.

I disagree. A peaceful powerplay wouldn't be fun. Imagine just fortifying and voting consolidation week after week with no one to interact with. Boring.

 

[Intersection]

You blanket fortified all your systems? Why would you do that? If we had had the manpower at the time to blanket UM you, we could've started this turmoil ourselves after that blanket fortification.

I'm sorry, how do you expect randoms to respond to held merits?

Let me refresh your memory: cycle 345, Hudson detects held merits on a dozen or so profitables mid-cycle, and we ramp up hauling to counter. That number climbs to 20 or so systems, and as we fortify through the rest of our profitables, we extensively scout and monitor the undermining situation. After a while, nothing moves - knowing it to be safe, we move to a blanket fort in order to garner enough CC for a prep on the following cycle.

Hardly rocket science - but you learn from the best.

Appeal to authority is the last bastion of people with no evidence. Besides, any advantage in terms of experience you may have (which is debatable given how often you have turnover from elections) is negated by the bias created by the PR win you would get from a successful 5C accusation. A biased authority is an unreliable authority.

Naturally, you're a more reliable authority, since the Empire has never accused anyone of anything.

For what it's worth, Hudson doesn't hold elections - some of us have been leadership for over 6 years.

There have been a few, yes. but it was not the original topic of this post, nor were they the primary focus of the thread at any point. If we want to make a new thread entirely built around discussing ways that Frontier can change powerplay to limit the effectiveness of 5C or eliminate it entirely with no mention of specific accusations, then I will support that entirely. We have our own 5C problem that we would love to see eliminated.

Addressing 5c and its impact on Powerplay was certainly part of this thread's original intent.

Still, I'd absolutely be on board to open that sort of a discussion once this thread has run its course. Believe it or not, I'm just as adamant about solving your 5c problem as I am about solving ours.

 

[QueensPawn]

Naturally, you're a more reliable authority, since the Empire has never accused anyone of anything.

I don't claim to be an authority. I state my case and undermine your arguments when they are clearly false to me and let my words speak for me. I don't try to make an appeal to authority.

Addressing 5c and its impact on Powerplay was certainly part of this thread's original intent.

Still, I'd absolutely be on board to open that sort of a discussion once this thread has run its course. Believe it or not, I'm just as adamant about solving your 5c problem as I am about solving ours.

Part of, but not the bulk of this thread's original intent. And the fact that it is only a minor part of this thread means the entire conversation is tainted by the accusations that are being thrown around. How would you feel if we started a thread asking to fix 5C that contained a massive accusation against you for botting and 5Cing us week after week? It would turn into a shouting match instantaneously. You've politicized the conversation, very intentionally. To try to pin us as the pro-5C party while leaving yourself with a fallback position from which to say you're being perfectly fair and balanced when the implications you are throwing around are not. It's underhanded propaganda tactics and I think you know that.

 

[Mr T]

As someone who doesn't have a scooby about PP but finds this fascinating can someone explain what 5C is?
<goes and hides behind the Krait coffee machine>

O7

Hey, thanks for asking man. I had no idea what 5c was either

 

[Batwingsix]

How does one proof NOT having done something? In fact, isn't the "prosecution" supposed to prove that a "crime" has been committed? So far, all Hudson has provided has been wild accusations and speculations.

Yeah, typically if there is an accusation, burden of proof falls on the accuser. It would be like me saying "I bet you stole that dollar bill" then demanding they prove they didn't steal that one thing instead of "I have evidence you did it".

I don't even partake in powerplay and I am getting schoolyard drama energy from this whole post. Panties in a bunch over a video game.

 

[QueensPawn]

I don't even partake in powerplay and I am getting schoolyard drama energy from this whole post. Panties in a bunch over a video game.

There's a reason I felt that the only sane course was to lock this thread. This whole topic is too tied into egos around who hurt who, and I don't think we can easily resolve it without first divorcing it from specific accusations entirely.

 

[CMDR Foursyth]

Message received and understood. You are happy with the current status quo, we understand that you don't want the 5C situation to change, you would very much like to have this thread locked again, and it is in your interest to encourage behaviour that would get it locked again. We get it.

Let us please discuss the actual issue, which is ways to reduce the ease and impact of 5C actions, whoever is causing them. Good-faith discussions about the state of the game and ways to improve it. If you don't want to do that, there are plenty of other threads.

 

[Fezix93]

I find this interesting. Coming from a power that almost 5c’d grom to oblivion while cackling about it in system chat. Meanwhile grom commanders put in hours of dedicated work to undo the 5c. the torval expansions that contested imperial space despite being staunch allies. Or shall we mention the HIP 1572 preparation that got pushed up to a record breaking high of 500k merits during a federal assault and always has high numbers during federal assaults. Shall we also mention a certain federal leader that got banned from the game. Or what about the notorious ganker group borann boys(most of whom got banned and were even apart of federal leadership) and now plag, borann boys 2.0, that aids and has aided federal pvp pilots.

In conclusion, despite what noise comes from the FUC propaganda machine. All other powers know the disregard FUC have shown towards agreements, conventions, fair play resolutions, and civilized conversation. It would be nice to have a peaceful galaxy, but you all never learn; so we have to make sure to protect ourselves against the galaxy bully. If only FUC could follow and imitate the conduct of The Fatherhood squadron(another sizeable federal aligned entity) the galaxy would be a different place than it is now.

Please keep the discussion on topic. This message adds nothing to the ongoing conversation other than the exact kind of baseless flaming that has gotten the thread locked. The purpose of this thread is to discuss 5C; not turn into a brawl about "Imps good, Feds bad". Not that I'm pretending to be a moderator, but this is the exact kind of message that prevents meaningful conversation, and I think we ALL can agree on that.

Yeah, typically if there is an accusation, burden of proof falls on the accuser. It would be like me saying "I bet you stole that dollar bill" then demanding they prove they didn't steal that one thing instead of "I have evidence you did it".

I don't even partake in powerplay and I am getting schoolyard drama energy from this whole post. Panties in a bunch over a video game.

Again, we are not asking for proof from the empire that they didn't 5C; that would be impossible. Shortly after Mo Mo's message that you quote, I responded with 3 examples from our Sheets which show several systems being Undermined to 100% before being Forted to 100%, which undermines the argument that the Empire was 'baiting' randoms into forting systems for them. To the Empire's credit, it also does show a few systems that show partial UMing and then full forting as well, but the issue is that there shouldn't be any cases where the Undermining fills in completely before the Forting, otherwise the Federation would be able to scrap. I understand that this is only 3 screenshots, and more would be necessary to fully prove the 'constant and consistent 5C Forting of systems' over the month that we are seeing and calling out (and trying to have a discussion about), but I also can't post our entire sheet/history for obvious reasons.

Hey, thanks for asking man. I had no idea what 5c was either

This here is one of the purposes of this thread. I'm glad it was beneficial for you o7

 

[QueensPawn]

You've politicized the conversation, very intentionally. To try to pin us as the pro-5C party while leaving yourself with a fallback position from which to say you're being perfectly fair and balanced when the implications you are throwing around are not. It's underhanded propaganda tactics and I think you know that.

Message received and understood. You are happy with the current status quo, we understand that you don't want the 5C situation to change, you would very much like to have this thread locked again, and it is in your interest to encourage behaviour that would get it locked again. We get it.

Let us please discuss the actual issue, which is ways to reduce the ease and impact of 5C actions, whoever is causing them. Good-faith discussions about the state of the game and ways to improve it. If you don't want to do that, there are plenty of other threads.

Way to prove my point in one post, and blatantly so.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not happy with the current 5C situation at all. I would be very happy to see 5C disappear forever. But I also don't have any delusions that us discussing the problem on the forum will get Frontier to fix this problem any time soon, so I think we should work within the framework we have while it's what we have. Make the best of a bad situation. But go ahead and lie all you want. I've lain your propaganda tactics bare and people can judge for themselves.

 

[QueensPawn]

Please keep the discussion on topic. This message adds nothing to the ongoing conversation other than the exact kind of baseless flaming that has gotten the thread locked. The purpose of this thread is to discuss 5C; not turn into a brawl about "Imps good, Feds bad". Not that I'm pretending to be a moderator, but this is the exact kind of message that prevents meaningful conversation, and I think we ALL can agree on that.

So when Feds accuse Imperials, it's good and on topic, but when Imperials accuse Feds, it's off topic and flaming. Interesting.

Again, we are not asking for proof from the empire that they didn't 5C; that would be impossible. Shortly after Mo Mo's message that you quote, I responded with 3 examples from our Sheets which show several systems being Undermined to 100% before being Forted to 100%, which undermines the argument that the Empire was 'baiting' randoms into forting systems for them. To the Empire's credit, it also does show a few systems that show partial UMing and then full forting as well, but the issue is that there shouldn't be any cases where the Undermining fills in completely before the Forting, otherwise the Federation would be able to scrap. I understand that this is only 3 screenshots, and more would be necessary to fully prove the 'constant and consistent 5C Forting of systems' over the month that we are seeing and calling out (and trying to have a discussion about), but I also can't post our entire sheet/history for obvious reasons.

This was addressed. For systems that we want you to lose, openly undermining without fortification is not dangerous for us. Only the lossmakers we need to be careful about. The existence of some systems that were undermined before fortification is not a sign of relying on 5C. I have yet to see any examples of systems where we UMed before fortification in systems that mattered.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

From what I've seen the discussion has been civil and I don't see any reason to close the thread. I won't tell the moderators what to do though, that's for them to decide.

Anyway, while the thread isn't closed I'm still hopeful that any of the imperial leaders who have been commenting here can answer my question:

All right, for the sake of the argument let's say Hudson randos who typically fort like 4 or 5 systems per cycle fortified 35 systems the first week of your attack. Let's assume that, with no turmoil yet and no one receiving "your power needs your help" notifications, they decided to keep an eye on GalMap and start forting every system that showed "under threat", even those that hadn't been forted in many months, and to exactly 100% in most cases.

Now my question is the following:

Was your "strategy" to do 2 million UM merits, without sniping, handing in your merits from the first day of the cycle, and hoping randos would fort 35 systems to stop Hudson from scrapping?

I'm asking this because if those randos would have forted only 20 or even 30 systems instead of 35 all this would have ended with Hudson taking advantage of your hard UM work. This is why your plan makes no sense from the very beginning without the 5C forts, and yet you went ahead with it. Why?

 

[QueensPawn]

Anyway, while the thread isn't closed I'm still hopeful that any of the imperial leaders who have been commenting here can answer my question:

I've answered your question once before in the Winters thread from cycle 361.

Our strategy changed multiple times throughout the operation. Our original plan involved snipes against some Hudson systems while the safe systems were openly UMed by our regular UM teams. Our original plan also didn't include the full blanket cancel of Winters that ended up happening because we weren't sure we had the manpower to pull that off, but when we got to Monday and Hudson was just about done and enthusiasm was still strong, we switched focuses. Our plans were adaptive, and when the attempt to goad your randoms into forting worked, we adapted and scrapped our sniping plans. It's not convenient for your ability to accuse us, so I understand why you would ignore my answer to your question, but that is the answer. Our plans adapted as the situation changed. The end result you saw was not the plan all along.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

I've answered your question once before in the Winters thread from cycle 361.

No, you didn't answer my question. You said you're a BGS person and you didn't know what the exact plan was. Here's your reply.

Please stop muddying the conversation.

 

[QueensPawn]

I don't know specifics, but even if I did, I wouldn't be posting those kinds of specifics in a public forum. I am primarily a BGS person, but I know enough of the plans we had and how they changed to know that there were snipes planned, which undercuts your entire question's assumption that the plan was to openly UM all systems from the start.

You are starting from an assumption about what we did and building a question around that assumption. It's called Begging the Question

 

[Fezix93]

For systems that we want you to lose, openly undermining without fortification is not dangerous for us. Only the lossmakers we need to be careful about. The existence of some systems that were undermined before fortification is not a sign of relying on 5C

This is incorrect. If the Imps openly Undermined systems except lossmakers, then the Imps would just effectively be red teaming for us. We'd be able to red team our own lossmakers in that case, and then be able to scrap, unless the forts come in to stop that. The issue isn't the Empire doing the Undermining; it's the Forts that are coming in after. Forts that come in rapidly and near perfectly against two powerplay powers, one not even in turmoil, without any of the hallmarks associated with random forting, cycle after cycle, for nearly a month now, that is entirely inconsistent with the forts that we have seen by randoms based on our records going back years, including instances when Winters was in Turmoil. Again, there have been numerous numerous times where a system has been marked as 'Under threat' and it doesn't get the amount of forts at the frequency and accuracy we have been seeing. When randoms fort, it is never this clean nor this fast, and after a month of uncoordinated forting, there would eventually be a hole-- a blunder-- some mistake that the uncoordinated masses would overlook or accidentally leave unforted (as they do during normal cycles, even when something is labelled as Under Threat), that we would then be able to take advantage of and scrap. The 'baited' Fort argument can work on the short term, but the longer it goes on without a single mistake by the randos, the less it looks like randos and the more it looks like 5C. You may seriously believe that all the forting being done so far has been done by 'baited randos', but the reality is these 'baited randos' are far more accurate and consistent than any randos we've seen so far, particularly as it occurs to Winters when she is not in a Turmoil.

You may not be responsible, but you have to turn a blind eye to say that it's not happening or benefiting the Empire

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

I don't know specifics, but even if I did, I wouldn't be posting those kinds of specifics in a public forum. I am primarily a BGS person, but I know enough of the plans we had and how they changed to know that there were snipes planned, which undercuts your entire question's assumption that the plan was to openly UM all systems from the start.

You are starting from an assumption about what we did and building a question around that assumption. It's called Begging the Question

You guys had 31 systems 100% UM'ed by Saturday, and 46 systems 100% UM'ed by Sunday. All those merits handed in and you're telling me the plan was not to openly UM from the start. Okay.

As you said, we've had this conversation before. I'd prefer to avoid pointless arguments this time. Hopefully someone else from imperial leadership can give an answer that makes sense.

 

[QueensPawn]

If you want to avoid pointless arguments, then why do you continue to ask the same leading question when we all keep giving you the same answers?

 

[Danieros]

I thought the thread was re-opened for discussions regarding 5c, or the broader, deeper problem that are bad actions in Powerplay. Yet it seems to keep going in accusations. If Hudson's incredibly negative balance was caused by 5c expansions, it would be understandable that a 5c attack was underway and it would be very poor form to capitalize on it. However, it has been Hudson leadership itself that chose to expand negative system after negative system for years. Blaming fortification, and then ultimately the imperial underminers for undermining (?) seems like an attempt to shift the blame.

The federal insatisfaction here seems to be about the turmoil order, expecting that if anyone ever undermined Hudson, only his loss-makers should turmoil. But he is too negative due to his expansion strategy, so profitable systems are turmoiling too, making him turmoil more, and it keeps going. His expansion decisions are really biting him here, and as pointed out they did not expect the fortification to be so high even though Hudson hasn't been openly undermined before. Would the federals stop the undermining of another power due to their fortification being too high then, I wonder? Maybe we'll see this in the future.

Or maybe Frontier will fix the issue. For example, a very simple solution is simply making turmoil happen in order of lowest "base income". Nothing to do with whether a system is fortified or undermined, this already serves the purpose of defining CC balance. Those lowest base income systems should be the most negative systems in a power. Most sensible powers seem to have adopted a cautious approach of not expanding to loss-making systems to avoid going negative, so they do not find themselves in the situation here. So we end up with a very stale powerplay situation. Removing this concern should make the Powerplay state go forward, as there would be no way to find themselves losing profitable systems because someone fortified a loss-maker. No more need to throw blame around.