Page 4 of 31 FirstFirst ... 234569 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 458

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: PFB, Ship Rebuy Penalty and Powerplay

  1. #46
    Option two cuts it best for me...

  2. #47
    Originally Posted by Blight Born View Post (Source)
    Which is why it is generally encouraged to keep PP in open to avoid the "super-secret cloaking devices"... just saying....
    My point is that the rules being discussed in this thread are not likely to have any impact at all on the mode dedicated powerplayers use to complete activities for their powers.

  3. #48
    Originally Posted by CMDR Relick View Post (Source)
    I second the desire to have this talk elsewhere.
    It should be had elsewhere but is a conversation the majority of power players I speak to want to revisit.

  4. #49
    Originally Posted by rjwhite41 View Post (Source)
    It should be had elsewhere but is a conversation the majority of power players I speak to want to revisit.
    What I meant was, I second the desire to have the talk, but also have it elsewhere. You bet your I'll be all over that thread if it's made.

  5. #50
    Originally Posted by CMDR Relick View Post (Source)
    What I meant was, I second the desire to have the talk, but also have it elsewhere. You bet your I'll be all over that thread if it's made.

  6. #51
    option three, without a doubt

    we shouldn't get pilot federation-punished for rightfully attacking enemies

    pledging to a power means you get new stuff to do, you get bonuses, but you also take risks

  7. #52
    Ha! It took 10 posts for him to show up. He's getting rusty.

  8. #53
    I'm for option 3. I have some ideas on how to improve on that idea, but I'll save them for the end.

    I would not call option 1 catastrophic, but it would not accomplish the stated goal and only achieve its "island" effect on newer players who would actually be restricted by the monetary barriers. I can tell you that if cross-power goals are in mind (and this even applies occasionally beyond Imperial powers, in my case; undoubtedly to the Feds as well) no monetary barrier will stop devoted CMDRs from acting on them.

    Thus, the only actual effect option 1 might have is worsening the PowerPlay player attrition- serving as a barrier to new players getting into PowerPlay and as yet another annoyance to veterans, especially those who want to better integrate the increasingly prominent PvP base.

    Option 2 is less bad and makes sense, but is meaningless if SuicideWinding is not addressed for standard bounties as well.

    Option 3 makes the most sense since it fits best with the manner of PowerPlay PvP that is currently being done and does not impose any tax on players who wish to help their allies in defense.

    However, Option 3 could be made better (and indeed, I feel it would benefit PowerPlay) if a couple of additions were made. Here are a couple of ideas.

    One option is to remove PF bounties from PowerPlay PvP if the combat happens in PowerPlay space belonging to either of the combatants' SuperPowers, but keep system bounties otherwise per Option 3.

    This could be made better still by factoring PvP into PowerPlay in the following manner- which could also improve the fun factor for all of us.

    -A PowerPlay bounty could replace the PF bounty; and a similar rebuy penalty can be applied against a player's current merit count and/or possibly cause a loss of PowerPlay Rank. PowerPlay Bounties could also potentially replace standard Bounties that one gets from killing PowerPlay NPCs. To borrow Sandro's hypo format:

    -If I kill an enemy PvP pilot defending a control system held by that pilot's Power, I accrue a PowerPlay Bounty for that Superpower's Powers.
    -If a player from that superpower then kills me, that player will collect that bounty in the form of merits. There should be a cap on the merits earn-able in this way (more than the current 1 merit, but not enough to be usefully exploitable- perhaps 1000).
    -Optionally, if that player kills me in a control system owned by that pilot's Power (not SuperPower) a portion (perhaps 10%) of the collected bounty's merits additionally goes towards the fortification for that system.
    -In the context of expansions, if a defending (expanding Power's) pilot kills an offending PvPer that has a PowerPlay bounty, a percentage can go toward the expansion of that system.

    If PowerPlay bounties were also Accrued by killing the relevant NPCs or those hauling PowerPlay material (as the language of combat PowerPlay NPCs suggests) then this could be expanded further to better integrate PvP action- making it a more significant, but still not the primary, means to forward PowerPlay objectives. This would impose a fun risk to PowerPlay attackers, truckers, and defenders.

    That all said, Option 3 is the best of the stated options, but also presents a nice opportunity to give PowerPlay a shot in the arm.

  9. #54
    Not an active power player, but have engaged here and there.

    Option 3 makes most sense from a story perspective, and it's just common sense tbh. Option 1 renders superpowers meaningless, Option 2 is a wet blanket, but Option 3 makes Superpower allegiance an important decision as well, and brings them into play. It also allows for more player-led story input because players would then be driving the actions of the Superpowers through their joint ops.

    As for common sense? Let's take the Federation.
    Hudson is President. Winters is Shadow President. Winters may be representing the Opposition to Hudson on a political level, but that wouldn't mean she would actively undermine the interests of the Federation as a whole by sabotaging and attacking Hudson in favour of their common enemy - the Empire.

    Option 3 makes the most real world sense in that, Winters and Hudson can work against each other internally, but still would represent a united front for the Federation's foreign affairs.

    And the disadvantage for the Alliance? Boo boo, that's because of their political system. If they had better incentives to joining an independent power, it could provide a balance to make up for the inequality of "help".

  10. #55
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    There has been a lot of very interesting debate among Powerplayers as to how the new crime rules should/can interact with the system.

    So I thought I'd fish for some feedback!

    Important: This thread is for this single subject only. Off topic posts *will* be removed without warning! There are other potential issues with these rules, but they're not the focus of this thread.

    Very Important: This thread is quite technical in terms of Powerplay design, so read carefully! The devil is in the details.

    OK, so first, a recap so we're all on the same page:

    Live Powerplay crime rules:

    * If I am pledged to a power and in my power's territory, I can attack with impunity any other pledged vessel as long as their power is from a different superpower (in this case, treat every independent power as its own superpower).

    * I can attack with impunity a pledged vessel from the same superpower in my power's territory if I have scanned it and discovered it is carrying voucher or cargo associated with my power.

    This means that you cannot "help" a power sharing the same superpower (e.g. Hudson helping Winters, both are Federal powers) without incurring standard system bounties (or waiting for opponent pledged vessels to become wanted).

    Beta crime rules:

    * I will suffer a Pilot's Federation Bounty and risk a ship rebuy penalty if I attack any pledged vessel that does not belong to my power.

    As folk have pointed out, this is potentially very restrictive, reducing the ability to help out powers from the same superpower.

    As I have said, I'm not totally convinced that would be a bad move, but then, I don't play Powerplay as much as you folk do!

    So, I have a few options I'd like your opinions on:


    * Leave it as it currently is in Beta: Independent powers potentially become more effective as the playing field is more level in terms of who can easily help out (hint: no-one can).


    * Change the new exception: I will not suffer a PFB or ship rebuy penalty if I was pledged to a power, the target vessel was pledged to a power from a different superpower, and the system was owned by a power aligned to my superpower.

    * I will still suffer standard bounty crimes for helping out.


    * Remove crimes for attacking a pledged vessel pledged to a power from a different superpower to the power I am pledged to, in a system owned by a power aligned to my superpower.

    * This means no bounties, PFB or ship rebuy penalties will be triggered unless I am attacking a ship from my power, or a ship pledged to a power aligned with my superpower that is not carrying your power's cargo or vouchers.

    Feedback will be appreciated!


  11. #56
    There is a god afterall.

    Option 3. Although, I'd still prefer to see some kind of blanket embargo on ship rebuy penalty/PFB for any Powerplay action to allow, for instance, Empire players to snipe Feds from delivering powerplay cargo and stuff for preparation and fortification.

  12. #57
    Originally Posted by CMDR Relick View Post (Source)
    What I meant was, I second the desire to have the talk, but also have it elsewhere. You bet your I'll be all over that thread if it's made.

    I know and we'll both be saying the same thing in it.

  13. #58


    Hi Sandro,
    Thank you so much for taking the time to gather our opinion on the topic.
    It has been a hot topic of discussion since the patch note release occurred.

    I do have a basic question before stating my preference.
    Do the changes proposed here, will affect Player vs Player interactions or both PvP and PvE interactions?
    Please, could you clarify?

  14. #59
    I Power Played for a time. But I don't go around attacking ships at random, especially other players.

    But I do have some thoughts on the subject:

    1. Each Power should Stand Alone, regardless of what Superpower they support*, as they are not the same power, or they wouldn't exist.

    2. When I travel into a region controlled by another power, I am warned the region is "Hostile", however nothing really happens. NPC's ignore me, stations welcome me with open arms. It doesn't feel particularly hostile. Now I do understand there is some reaction when you have vouchers, but again, since I don't generally go around attacking other ships, I never had any concerns with this. Instead, when I am in Hostile territory, I should be treated as such - NPC's should interdict or attack. Stations should shoo me away. Likewise, ships from other powers in my territory should expect the same - they can be fired upon without incurring any sort of penalty in my territory, just as they should be able to fire on me when I'm in their territory. Engaging "enemy" ships in their territory should result in bounties only within that territory - it's part of that whole Hostile thing again. The Pilot's Federation should understand conflict between powers and keep their noses out of Power Business.

    3. Powers Should Be able to Align (* from above) - If Winters and Hudson want to coop and ally, then they should be able to do so. If Lavingy and Aisling want to buddy up, that's fine too - hell, if Aisling and Hudson want to align against Grom or Delaine, that's fine too - countries form alliances, why shouldn't Powers? But this means some major league reworking of the entire Power Play system, to make it more malleable and Play-able. It would mean new Voting options beyond Consolidate or Expand - options to forge or break alliances as well, and these would then become additional power play options - if you're trying to forge an alliance between similar Powers (Winters and Hudson or Aisling and Lavingy) then your total goal would be lower (easier to accomplish), where as forging an alliance between opposing powers (Winters and Aisling or Delaine and Hudson) would require considerably more effort, and thus have a much higher goal.
    Dissolving or violating an alliance could be done through Undermining, with Undermining also serving to prevent these alliances (allowing other outside powers to attempt to prevent such alliances in the first place - Antal's forces working to prevent an alliance between Winters and Grom). Or these alliances can simply be allowed to dissolve normally over time, much like Merit-decay.

    Finally, if Power Play is to be overhauled, the method for entering in to Power Play should be altered a bit - rather than simply signing up as we have now, commanders should be invited, much in the same manner as System Permits are issued - by building reputation with a faction aligned to the power they wish to pledge themselves, though the invitation should be generated as a Mission Message, rather than from the Mission Boards, as we all know these missions have a bad habit of not popping up regularly. In addition to creating a more realistic "flow" from being a Nobody Commander, unknown to any faction, power or superpower, we would instead have to first prove ourselves, by working through a minor faction, then being invited to join the "upper ranks" of Power Play. After that, we should still be free to quit a power just as we can now, or defect to another power with all the benefits and penalties thereof.

    As it stands right now, a brand new commander could pledge Aisling, sit around in their starter system for 3 weeks and a few days, then on Wednesday, spend the day hauling Fortification materials, and wake up Thursday morning able to purchase Prismatic Shields - or pick a Power and a Prize - and something about this just doesn't feel quite right.

  15. #60
    the proposed ideas are good.

    now someone may list how option three can be exploited by PvPers that use the powerplay tag just to circumvent the PF Bounty and the PvP Rebuy correction.

Page 4 of 31 FirstFirst ... 234569 ... LastLast