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

[Zechs Darius]

No, but the way I phrased it might be confusing to you.

5c involves pledging yourself to an enemy power to harm that enemy power. From the point of view of that power, it is being harmed by its own commanders.

Red-teaming involves pledging yourself to an enemy power in order to undermine your own power. From the point of view of that power, its commanders are "attacking" an enemy power.

The important thing to remember is that red-teaming abides by the "rules" of engagement Powerplay was designed with. 5c doesn't, as Powerplay wasn't designed with the possibility of internal sabotage in mind (a major oversight, for sure).

And yes, if all of this sounds pretty long-winded and broken, it's because it is. We're just doing the best with what we have.

Gotcha, thanks.
Genuinely, by the way.

So the most recent LYR turmoil was an example of red teaming.(Which is fine and good).

The Imps though, I'll have to say straight up, are blaming the Feds poor forting for the problems. Not 5C.

This goes back to perspective. But it's very much one side says one thing, one side says the other.

My point in mentioning this: A: The truth is probably somewhere in between. and B: I doubt anything will change.

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

Gotcha, thanks.
Genuinely, by the way.

So the most recent LYR turmoil was an example of red teaming.(Which is fine and good).

The Imps though, I'll have to say straight up, are blaming the Feds poor forting for the problems. Not 5C.

This goes back to perspective. But it's very much one side says one thing, one side says the other.

My point in mentioning this: A: The truth is probably somewhere in between. and B: I doubt anything will change.

This is not new, every time we've been affected by 5C the imps have blamed us. This happened back in 2019 during their Operation Valentine as well, when 5C fed Winters with very bad expansions while Torval was weaponizing our space with unopposable triggers. At the time "Fed leadership is incompetent" was all they had to say, so I'm not surprised this is what they're saying now.

 

[Zechs Darius]

This is not new, every time we've been affected by 5C the imps have blamed us. This happened back in 2019 during their Operation Valentine as well, when 5C fed Winters with very bad expansions while Torval was weaponizing our space with unopposable triggers. At the time "Fed leadership is incompetent" was all they had to say, so I'm not surprised this is what they're saying now.

/thread.

To be honest that is kinda my suspicion. Neither side (largely, let's all accept all sides likely have the odd outlier who believes the ends justify the means) are likely directly 5Cing the other from their own high command. 5C is probably happening - from individuals not active in this forum, and possibly not answering to the aforementioned high commands discord.

So both sides, when it happens to either - which you have just confirmed - think the other is crying foul, while the other side claims otherwise.
Both sides will also, I suspect largely blame the other sides Randos for kneejerking to the big red turmoil tab, and the "your faction needs your help!" mail.

And a clone of this thread will appear in 2024 when the big Fed attack on the Imps happens.

 

[Intersection]

Gotcha, thanks.
Genuinely, by the way.

So the most recent LYR turmoil was an example of red teaming.(Which is fine and good).

The Imps though, I'll have to say straight up, are blaming the Feds poor forting for the problems. Not 5C.

This goes back to perspective. But it's very much one side says one thing, one side says the other.

My point in mentioning this: A: The truth is probably somewhere in between. and B: I doubt anything will change.

Yeah, I sympathize.

You see, the reason we're able to say these things with such certainty is because we know how Powerplay works, and what can and can't be achieved; we also know how our randoms behave, because we've been monitoring them for literal years. In this case, it isn't simply a "both sides" thing.

Unfortunately, none of these things translate well to the layman who's simply watching, or tagging on for a single op, like you. To you, it just looks like people throwing accusations at each other.

Let me tell you this: if you want a fun ride, DM me, and I'll walk you through the fed version of things, the long way 'round - and hopefully convince you.

It's your choice, of course - if you really just want to point and shoot, it's not your responsibility to understand why.

 

[Zechs Darius]

Yeah, I sympathize.

You see, the reason we're able to say these things with such certainty is because we know how Powerplay works, and what can and can't be achieved; we also know how our randoms behave, because we've been monitoring them for literal years. In this case, it isn't simply a "both sides" thing.

Unfortunately, none of these things translate well to the layman who's simply watching, or tagging on for a single op, like you. To you, it just looks like people throwing accusations at each other.

Let me tell you this: if you want a fun ride, DM me, and I'll walk you through the fed version of things, the long way 'round - and hopefully convince you.

It's your choice, of course - if you really just want to point and shoot, it's not your responsibility to understand why.

On the one hand, I am a soldier of the Alliance, - as much as the game lets me be - So pointing and shooting is what I do. I do it well, especially on the ground. What you say will not change my target, because it cannot.
On the other hand, I have been using this op to learn about the mechanics and complications of powerplay.
I make no secret that I have a certain distaste for it. (Own faction toxic to own power play really, really rankles me).

I have the Alliance perspective.
I have the Imperial perspective.
If you don't mind educating me in the Federation perspective when you have a moment, it would at least allow me to judge.
I can't see it changing anything, because as mentioned. I have my targets, and I play fairly -- My targets won't change, and I won't stop playing fairly -- But it will allow me to ask further questions.

 

[Aleksander K]

Again, we play the game we have. There's no other way to lose bad systems, and it's not a broken mechanic because it doesn't affect other powers. Grom and Patreus obviously agree with what I'm saying.

Easy there. Please do not 'state' what Grom does or does not agree to. We may or may not but our opinion is our opinion if we choose to share it..

 

[Khan Tannhauser]

Easy there. Please do not 'state' what Grom does or does not agree to. We may or may not but our opinion is our opinion if we choose to share it..

Grom successfully scrapped recently, so I assumed you guys consider losing your own bad systems a legitimate thing to do. If that's not the case and you think it's a bad practice I apologize.

 

[Intersection]

On the one hand, I am a soldier of the Alliance, - as much as the game lets me be - So pointing and shooting is what I do. I do it well, especially on the ground. What you say will not change my target, because it cannot.
On the other hand, I have been using this op to learn about the mechanics and complications of powerplay.
I make no secret that I have a certain distaste for it. (Own faction toxic to own power play really, really rankles me).

I have the Alliance perspective.
I have the Imperial perspective.
If you don't mind educating me in the Federation perspective when you have a moment, it would at least allow me to judge.
I can't see it changing anything, because as mentioned. I have my targets, and I play fairly -- My targets won't change, and I won't stop playing fairly -- But it will allow me to ask further questions.

Hey, thanks for listening! I'll walk you through it.

 

[Zechs Darius]

It's the intent that makes the difference between company internal hacking for security measures and a Kremlin ordered misinformation campaign.

If i don't understand an argument, I usually ask a question to clarify it. Compulsively trying to put it into differing circumstances is called whataboutism or s***flooding and it's considered acting in the interest of the accused person(s).

I wanted, actually to briefly address why it mattered to me.

Why to me it's not just whataboutism.

See, like many here I am sure, indeed like the point of the thread it seems, we all have our own codes. Our own rules of engagement.
Now, way back when, for example one of mine was in SWG. Never ever flying the Royal Guard Interceptor, or Jedi Starfighter in PVP. (They were thought to be OP). In truth, I usually flew a Y-wing to great effect, but liked the A-wing too.

Regarding war scale activities, like BGS and Powerplay. My general rule of engagement re: dirty play is: "Go up to and including only what your opponent does, as long as within the rules. Let your opponent be the one to escalate."

So from my perspective, discussing some of the other accusations is absolutely, 100% necessary when discussing when one thing is communally not allowed.

If the community is to generally self regulate (and yes, we have to, nothing is getting fixed) playstyles. Then the table must be open to all situations of foul play, and not taking advantage of such.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Well yes, because it upends the game in a way you can't defend against.

Powerplay was supposed to work via majority voting for the best choice and work on the assumption people wanted the best. What happened instead was rivals sabotaging others from the inside because its stupidly effective compared to actually attacking normally.

Powerplay ceases to be a functioning game if you are undoing deliberate acts like that. Trying to keep prep lists free of crap is a weekly hassle, and since SCRAP (a gentleman's agreement between powers to oppose said crap if it goes through) has kind of died as well its all a drag.

You are clearly more well versed in this than I am. Full disclosure, I don't know the first thing about Powerplay...but...it seems to me that this is rather working as intended, no? I can certainly see someone role playing a subversive spy role and doing exactly just this. Now, if it's unbalanaced, that's one thing...but is the concensus that it shouldn't be possible? Or just that it needs rebalancing?

 

[Zechs Darius]

You are clearly more well versed in this than I am. Full disclosure, I don't know the first thing about Powerplay...but...it seems to me that this is rather working as intended, no? I can certainly see someone role playing a subversive spy role and doing exactly just this. Now, if it's unbalanaced, that's one thing...but is the concensus that it shouldn't be possible? Or just that it needs rebalancing?

The general consensus is that PP needs a rework.
I do however personally agree with your assessment, that it fits in universe, is allowed by the TOS and just needs rebalancing.

But I am not a hardcore powerplayer.
I am a Captain, with a mission.
In powerplay terms I am a casual just learning the basics.

 

[CMDR Foursyth]

There are many many mechanics in PowerPlay that work poorly. That's somewhat inevitable in any complex system where the opponents are trying to find an edge on each other. The sniping keeps getting broken, fixed, bizarre ascii characters, broken, fixed, etc. A power can't dump a terrible system without a bunch of its commanders pledging to another power to pretend to be bad guys. Combat expansions versus hauling expansions. And so on. All not that great - would be good to get them improved.

The concept of 5C - of being a sneaky saboteur - is not terrible. But the actual execution is game-breakingly bad. When in the past (around cycle 50-100 or so) everybody went full-on 5C, the game essentially destroyed itself. A massive number of people quit and most never came back. As currently "implemented" (not that it was intentional) it is truly a game-wrecking feature. Whereas that is not true of the various other oddities mentioned - of course we'd like to have them fixed, but even in their current state, they're a pain for sure, but they don't destroy the game.

The problem with 5C is that if every side just said "sod it, we're playing the game as it is, not as we wish it would be" then it would not be long before everybody quit. And that's why we have had multiple accords from all powers to not 5C - because we all understand that. But of course new people are always joining, they don't know the history, they are always looking for an edge, and they have Bright Ideas. They don't know what the consequences are, they don't necessarily check with those who do, and even if you tell them not to, they figure "hey - who's going to know I did it?" And so the cycle continues of people wrecking the game without understanding they're wrecking the game.

 

[QueensPawn]

I don't have time to respond to everything that has been said in the last few pages, but having read it all, I am unsurprised and yet deeply disappointed that this continues to go exactly as I anticipated. The reason a thread like this cannot be civil comes right back to the original post. The accusation against the empire is baked in. Feds continue to lambast Imperials for bringing in any evidence of how 5C is a universal issue as being off topic while simultaneously freely accusing Imperials. Until a new thread is started without the accusation against the Empire at its core, a neutral and productive conversation is impossible. The only way for Imperials to participate in this conversation without "straying off topic" is by accepting the premise that we are participating in 5C when we know that we are not. This is intentional, misleading, and it is malicious. I don't understand how the mods expect this thread to remain civil given these conditions. Incivility is at the heart of the topic presented in the OP.

 

[Zechs Darius]

There are many many mechanics in PowerPlay that work poorly. That's somewhat inevitable in any complex system where the opponents are trying to find an edge on each other. The sniping keeps getting broken, fixed, bizarre ascii characters, broken, fixed, etc. A power can't dump a terrible system without a bunch of its commanders pledging to another power to pretend to be bad guys. Combat expansions versus hauling expansions. And so on. All not that great - would be good to get them improved.

The concept of 5C - of being a sneaky saboteur - is not terrible. But the actual execution is game-breakingly bad. When in the past (around cycle 50-100 or so) everybody went full-on 5C, the game essentially destroyed itself. A massive number of people quit and most never came back. As currently "implemented" (not that it was intentional) it is truly a game-wrecking feature. Whereas that is not true of the various other oddities mentioned - of course we'd like to have them fixed, but even in their current state, they're a pain for sure, but they don't destroy the game.

The problem with 5C is that if every side just said "sod it, we're playing the game as it is, not as we wish it would be" then it would not be long before everybody quit. And that's why we have had multiple accords from all powers to not 5C - because we all understand that. But of course new people are always joining, they don't know the history, they are always looking for an edge, and they have Bright Ideas. They don't know what the consequences are, they don't necessarily check with those who do, and even if you tell them not to, they figure "hey - who's going to know I did it?" And so the cycle continues of people wrecking the game without understanding they're wrecking the game.

This, while being logical and accurate also means that any individual honour system those here choose to agree with also A: will need to be refreshed every 6 months as new commanders are cycled into PP roles, well, what few new commanders come. and B: That last paragraph tho... People who don't report to any high command or anyone here just doing their own thing.
The Fed/Imperial/Indy/Alliance Rando brigades.

As I've mentioned a few times.

Nothing will change.

 

[StellarKnight]

I don't have time to respond to everything that has been said in the last few pages, but having read it all, I am unsurprised and yet deeply disappointed that this continues to go exactly as I anticipated. The reason a thread like this cannot be civil comes right back to the original post. The accusation against the empire is baked in. Feds continue to lambast Imperials for bringing in any evidence of how 5C is a universal issue as being off topic while simultaneously freely accusing Imperials. Until a new thread is started without the accusation against the Empire at its core, a neutral and productive conversation is impossible. The only way for Imperials to participate in this conversation without "straying off topic" is by accepting the premise that we are participating in 5C when we know that we are not. This is intentional, misleading, and it is malicious. I don't understand how the mods expect this thread to remain civil given these conditions. Incivility is at the heart of the topic presented in the OP.

It is just facts CMDR:

• Hudson is in turmoil - kuddos for that!
• 5C fortification done to systems far away from Nanomam (Hudson HQ) which were not fortified in years. Random CMDRs don't do that - they just fortify the closest systems for merits;

=> 5C controls which systems Hudson will loose.

Just tell us who is directly benefiting from that?

 

[Zechs Darius]

It is just facts CMDR:

• Hudson is in turmoil - kuddos for that!
• 5C fortification done to systems far away from Nanomam (Hudson HQ) which were not fortified in years. Random CMDRs don't do that - they just fortify the closest systems for merits;

=> 5C controls which systems Hudson will loose.

Just tell us who is directly benefiting from that?

Randoms would also see the "your faction needs help" email, and the big red turmoil tab.
Hudson doesn't turmoil often. It's not a huge reach to assume that some kneejerked without knowing repercussions.

If I went Fed, rather than Alliance, and I was a member of a squadron not clued in to PP* (most). I very genuinely think that's what I would do.
Feds have a lot of randos. They've made for some great random spicy wars and odd BGS moments for us. It's part of the fed shtick that the quantity of commanders is a quality all of its own.

So you take these big warning signs from the Fed primary power.
You take uneducated Fed commanders, who are basically the hypern00bs from RVB
This aligns with what the Imperials are saying, and which I truly believe at this point.
I've been a n00b myself, we all have. Step outside of yourself just a second. Fed Commander, Want to do what's good for your team. Oh no, your faction is in peril! big red warning turmoil tab. Quick, reinforce these systems!
Wouldn't you fort them?

*ARRC are not clued in to PP. Undermining is as far as we go.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Randoms would also see the "your faction needs help" email, and the big red turmoil tab.
Hudson doesn't turmoil often. It's not a huge reach to assume that some kneejerked without knowing repercussions.

If I went Fed, rather than Alliance, and I was a member of a squadron not clued in to PP* (most). I very genuinely think that's what I would do.


*ARRC are not clued in to PP. Undermining is as far as we go.

The puzzling thing is that these randoms always turn up and know where to fortify at the 'correct' time- or simply fortify everything. When the Kumo had this going on it made us laugh because it was so blatant- IIRC we had to self turmoil after a 5C expansion was shoved on us, then the UM, and then the fortification...all in lock step.

It makes you wonder how people would play if the only way to was actually attack properly and could be stopped properly.

 

[Zechs Darius]

The puzzling thing is that these randoms always turn up and know where to fortify at the 'correct' time- or simply fortify everything. When the Kumo had this going on it made us laugh because it was so blatant- IIRC we had to self turmoil after a 5C expansion was shoved on us, then the UM, and then the fortification...all in lock step.

It makes you wonder how people would play if the only way to was actually attack properly and could be stopped properly.

Fortify everything would be what I would honestly expect. I expanded on my reply above with this, by the way.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Fortify everything would be what I would honestly expect. I expanded on my reply above with this, by the way.

But its easy to see the order of fortification as well, and see (quite blatantly) the priorities of the person doing it. With my example it was deliberate for the outcome to make the most of messing up the turmoil.

 

[Zechs Darius]

But its easy to see the order of fortification as well, and see (quite blatantly) the priorities of the person doing it. With my example it was deliberate for the outcome to make the most of messing up the turmoil.

That admittedly I can't comment to. Largely as I am not a powerplay strategist in the slightest.
I'd need to audit the numbers and get a full explanation.

But what I can say is that i've crossed with the Fed Rando Brigade a few times.
When Witch Head had that big Thargoid surge a few months back, we actually had to pull back from Evangelis, as the rando crowd favouring fed was this huge wave, that put out way more inf than we really wanted to resist. Made sense of course, station rescue = easy rank up. Soon as that was over, retaking Evangelis was simplicity. Onoros was even easier, with the Imperial fleet holding literally retreating as soon as the Pegasus exited hyperspace. (No, I will never stop mentioning that, ever).

My experience, away from P.P. Tells me that the Feds have the numbers, and the lack of discipline to make this possible, even likely.
If your numbers tell you otherwise, that's not something I can comment on with any reasonable experience or knowledge.

Lastly:

"It makes you wonder how people would play if the only way to was actually attack properly and could be stopped properly."

I've asked this same question about BGS more than twice.