Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920 LastLast
Results 256 to 270 of 298

Thread: Haulers are second class citizens, according to FDev

  1. #256
    Originally Posted by Darkfyre99 View Post (Source)
    If my experience in past games are repeated in Open Only Powerplay:



    In my experience, the vast majority of guards find "escort missions" to be unappealing, and are thus easily distracted by decoys, leaving the haulers they're supposed to be protecting vulnerable to raiders. Said raiders also use alt accounts to scout the opposition, and strike with overwhelming force. Most haulers get frustrated with the whole situation and quit, looking for something they actually enjoy doing, as opposed to ending up as living MacGuffins to be fought over.

    The few remaining haulers are those who play outside of prime time and thus have a better chance of playing without being attacked frequently, enjoy the challenge of completing their tasks without relying on the dubious protection of the guards, or both.



    See above.



    Ah, so that's where all the guards who are supposed to keeping the home fires lit have snuck off to.



    In my experience, defense in games like Elite: Dangerous rarely works. The advantage will always go to the aggressor, who has the advantage:
    • of choosing WHEN to attack
    • of choosing WHERE to attack
    • of having the numerical advantage
    • of having the intelligence advantage, due to the use of alt accounts


    I can't count the number of times that the PvPers who were supposed to be defending the "non-combatants" either got slaughtered because they were outnumbered ten to one, spent their entire night reacting to another faction's raiders, but not actually fighting them, and only occasionally getting into an actual fight because the opposition started being predictable about the order of their raids.

    By all accounts, both the raiders and the reaction force have tons of fun. The "non-combatants," and those who are actually willing to do guard duty, rarely do.
    Since all what I described is what your Power needs you to do, then you have to defend. Powers would provide patrol routes, rotas to cover systems, proper organisation like that what exists now. Power groups are incredibly well organised, motivated and are task oriented- but then you never actually played Powerplay, have you? The BGS is quite different to organising and actually fortifying/ UM or expanding.

    You seem to be under the impression attackers and defenders have the attention spans of a goldfish, and that haulers are eternal victims. Since the new Powerplay will be in a smaller area attacks won't be random, and that just as a Power is forced to defend, that does not mean they are not striking back at the same time.

    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    Disco!

    The attacker has all the advantages and can choose the engagement. You could imagine scenarios where attackers are thwarted by the defending escorts coming to the rescue of the hauler, but in reality, the advantage that the attacker has will always result in asymmetric engagements.

    You cannot provide cover for all your haulers. It's inefficient and the numbers don't add up.
    Therefor the attacker can pick and chose the weakest targets. Because that makes sense. You will try to have the greatest impact and the least amount of resistance.
    Because of this, the escorts will get bored, because they're either just following the haulers around, or get jumped by a superiour force. Not a fun job, and they'd be more efficient attacking other haulers.
    So it stands to reason that haulers will be left to their own devices.
    The kind of gameplay this provides is the shooting fish in a barrel gameplay that is already present during CGs.
    The haulers are the ones who are taking all the risk, so it's no wonder some of the PvP aficionados are hailing this as the greatest idea evahr! (Note: indeed there are haulers who are loving this, but are they representative of the kind of numbers you need to make it happen?)

    Also, if the amount of haulers vs the amount of hauler-shooters isn't balanced, you either get shark tanks where the hauler guppy goes in and gets mauled, or the percentage of haulers that can be stopped is so low, it makes the most sense to just throw numbers of haulers at it.
    Says the person who probably never actually fired a weapon in anger or played Powerplay.

  2. #257
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    Says the person who probably never actually fired a weapon in anger or played Powerplay.
    And this boys and girls is what we in the trade call a textbook case of Ad Hominem.

    Instead of addressing the points in the post, the post tries to discredit the poster. Some call this a fallacy, I call it: score! It means I must have made some pretty good points.

    Thanks for the compliment

  3. #258
    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    Disco!

    The attacker has all the advantages and can choose the engagement. You could imagine scenarios where attackers are thwarted by the defending escorts coming to the rescue of the hauler, but in reality, the advantage that the attacker has will always result in asymmetric engagements.

    You cannot provide cover for all your haulers. It's inefficient and the numbers don't add up.
    Therefor the attacker can pick and chose the weakest targets. Because that makes sense. You will try to have the greatest impact and the least amount of resistance.
    Because of this, the escorts will get bored, because they're either just following the haulers around, or get jumped by a superiour force. Not a fun job, and they'd be more efficient attacking other haulers.
    So it stands to reason that haulers will be left to their own devices.
    The kind of gameplay this provides is the shooting fish in a barrel gameplay that is already present during CGs.
    The haulers are the ones who are taking all the risk, so it's no wonder some of the PvP aficionados are hailing this as the greatest idea evahr! (Note: indeed there are haulers who are loving this, but are they representative of the kind of numbers you need to make it happen?)

    Also, if the amount of haulers vs the amount of hauler-shooters isn't balanced, you either get shark tanks where the hauler guppy goes in and gets mauled, or the percentage of haulers that can be stopped is so low, it makes the most sense to just throw numbers of haulers at it.
    In a scenario of power A undermining an important control-system of power B with the new rules of 100% undermining excess for success the scenario could play out very different.

    Because the system has a high CC income it is critical for power B to not fall into turmoil. So the defensive power B will have to try everything possible to get their haulers through. They would see a high priority in keeping fortifications high enough so that the opposition can not reach the 100% threshold.

    Haulers are needed to supply the control-system with fortification goods. This means hauler need to get to their target destination. They need to be in defensive ships. They will be flying in mixed wings with one or two hauler and two or three escorts. Additional wings will patrol supercruise and the target station. These wings also can watch for enemy undermining wings to stop opposition from progress.

    The offense will have to try to split their attention on undermining and blocking fortification deliveries of the opponent. They will have undermining wings and blockade wings. The blockade wings will also try to keep their undermining wings save.

    As you see, there are at least two different tasks for each side interwoven - so haulers and combat ships have a lot to do and watch out for. This does not sound boring or one-sided to me. It sounds rather engaging and thrilling, for all players involved.

  4. #259
    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    And this boys and girls is what we in the trade call a textbook case of Ad Hominem.

    Instead of addressing the points in the post, the post tries to discredit the poster. Some call this a fallacy, I call it: score! It means I must have made some pretty good points.

    Thanks for the compliment
    No, I'm simply tired of stating the obvious to posters like you, over and over and over, while you repeat the same lines.

    Powerplay is (or should be) built on trying to stop the tide of the other Power from achieving a goal- UMing, forting, whatever. You can't do that in PG or Solo, because the only way is to do it faster which makes it a simple haul grind, leading to the rubbish gameplay we have now.

    Open allows another Power to directly influence routine jobs, and its up to those powers to organise themselves to be successful at it. If they can't do that, then they fail- and then they have to put more effort in and collectively work it out.

  5. #260
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    No, I'm simply tired of stating the obvious to posters like you, over and over and over, while you repeat the same lines.

    Powerplay is (or should be) built on trying to stop the tide of the other Power from achieving a goal- UMing, forting, whatever. You can't do that in PG or Solo, because the only way is to do it faster which makes it a simple haul grind, leading to the rubbish gameplay we have now.

    Open allows another Power to directly influence routine jobs, and its up to those powers to organise themselves to be successful at it. If they can't do that, then they fail- and then they have to put more effort in and collectively work it out.
    2 things.

    You start with: No. But your post was a clear Ad Hominem. I don't see how you can deny that.
    You're acting as if you are again explaining why my point are debunked, still I see none of them addressed here.

    You're talking principle. You're talking why you'd like Powerplay in Open. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the way it might play out once it's Open Only. The way I framed my argument was in short one sentence statements. If I am going wrong anywhere, I would be happy to be proven wrong. But at least address those statements.

    @Arkadi, same. As I said, it's fun to imagine how those encounters will play out. But if I'm taking a wrong turn in my argumentation, lead me to water, and I'll drink.

  6. #261
    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    2 things.

    You start with: No. But your post was a clear Ad Hominem. I don't see how you can deny that.
    You're acting as if you are again explaining why my point are debunked, still I see none of them addressed here.

    You're talking principle. You're talking why you'd like Powerplay in Open. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the way it might play out once it's Open Only. The way I framed my argument was in short one sentence statements. If I am going wrong anywhere, I would be happy to be proven wrong. But at least address those statements.

    @Arkadi, same. As I said, it's fun to imagine how those encounters will play out. But if I'm taking a wrong turn in my argumentation, lead me to water, and I'll drink.
    Ok:


    The attacker has all the advantages and can choose the engagement. You could imagine scenarios where attackers are thwarted by the defending escorts coming to the rescue of the hauler, but in reality, the advantage that the attacker has will always result in asymmetric engagements.
    Why is that bad? Plus, you can stack the odds if you organise yourself.

    You cannot provide cover for all your haulers. It's inefficient and the numbers don't add up.
    You don't have to, because the most likely basic tactic is to interdict an intruder while a freighter is about.

    Therefor the attacker can pick and chose the weakest targets.
    They will pick the largest target they can, because that is the best use of the limited time they have. Killing a hauler with 10 merits is not worth it when a T-9 has 750.

    Because of this, the escorts will get bored, because they're either just following the haulers around, or get jumped by a superiour force. Not a fun job, and they'd be more efficient attacking other haulers.
    You assume that their role is fixed, and that they don't have a rota to swap roles, organise protection per each system getting fortified. Disorganisation in Open PP will result in turmoil very quickly.

    So it stands to reason that haulers will be left to their own devices.
    If they face opposition they won't, because Fortifiaction keeps powers solvent.

    The kind of gameplay this provides is the shooting fish in a barrel gameplay that is already present during CGs.
    What you describe is one facet of Powerplay, you ignore expansions, UMing etc. Hunters will be spread all over as they will have many jobs.

    The haulers are the ones who are taking all the risk, so it's no wonder some of the PvP aficionados are hailing this as the greatest idea evahr! (Note: indeed there are haulers who are loving this, but are they representative of the kind of numbers you need to make it happen?)
    Again Powers live via fortification. If its not done then you run the risk of turmoil. Haulers do take the risks, but then everyone hauls at some point. My own Power does this, where everyone does everything. Other Powers have dedicated hauling wings.

    Also, if the amount of haulers vs the amount of hauler-shooters isn't balanced, you either get shark tanks where the hauler guppy goes in and gets mauled, or the percentage of haulers that can be stopped is so low, it makes the most sense to just throw numbers of haulers at it.
    You don't know that- plus, since its not curated PvP this will be normal and spontaneous- the very gameplay that is needed.

  7. #262
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    Ok:
    Cheers
    Why is that bad? Plus, you can stack the odds if you organise yourself.
    I'm not saying it's bad, it's not an ethical issue. It's just a given.

    You don't have to, because the most likely basic tactic is to interdict an intruder while a freighter is about.
    So, we agree that escorts probably won't be the means of defense, but patrols are on own systems, and perhaps a scouting party in enemy systems? To keep the defending forces occupied?

    Patrols of own systems have the disadvantage that they are a reactionary force as well. When there's a steady trickle of haulers, they will be occupied. But am I wrong in assuming that a large amount of haulers all entering the system at the same time will be the best tactic to circumvent patrols? There will be casualties of course, but by pooling the haulers, they could overwhelm the defenses.

    Again, not saying this is bad. I suspect mass jumps and short bursts of chaos will be fun.

    They will pick the largest target they can, because that is the best use of the limited time they have. Killing a hauler with 10 merits is not worth it when a T-9 has 750.
    True. The attacker will pick the largest target with the weakest defense. And we agreed that personal escorts wings are probably not the best way to defend haulers.

    You assume that their role is fixed, and that they don't have a rota to swap roles, organise protection per each system getting fortified. Disorganisation in Open PP will result in turmoil very quickly.
    I assume that dedicated escort wings will not be as how this plays out. And it seems we agree on this. The escort wings is not something I made up, but what I've read others say how Open Only Powerplay will flesh out.

    What I'm getting from the way you see it, it's not constant protection but protection where needed during the time it's needed.

    If they face opposition they won't, because Fortification keeps powers solvent.
    In that case, you get defenders patrolling their own systems, until shady characters come along. Guard duty.

    What you describe is one facet of Powerplay, you ignore expansions, UMing etc. Hunters will be spread all over as they will have many jobs.
    Oh I'm sure hunters will have a gay old time.

    Again Powers live via fortification. If its not done then you run the risk of turmoil. Haulers do take the risks, but then everyone hauls at some point. My own Power does this, where everyone does everything. Other Powers have dedicated hauling wings.
    Everyone hauls at some point? Not if I read the sentiments of many correctly. Many a time I've read those who feel just hauling from A to B is the kind of grind they hate, and they only like the idea of OOPP because they can participate without having to haul.

    I suspect CMDRs who are willing to haul will become a very valuable commodity.

    Ironically
    You don't know that- plus, since its not curated PvP this will be normal and spontaneous- the very gameplay that is needed.
    No, I don't. I am crystal balling just as much as anyone. But notice the "if".

    Summarized, you make a good point that more flexible defense forces for haulers to be arranged when they go into systems owned by other powers. What I am wondering to see is the balance (my last point), and whether the defense of your own systems can be arranged in such a way that the defenders don't want to self destruct out of sheer boredom. You say job rotation, I just wonder how this will be organised. You're dealing with people who are playing a game, not robots, not people in a job. It will depend upon frequency of attacks, the number of own systems at risk, and in what way the other powers can gather information about defending forces. It only takes a CMDR with an alt account per system.

    The main point here perhaps is, the first line in my initial post. You can envisage all kinds of scenarios and state this is the way it will play out, as I did as a counter, but when dealing with as many variables and players, the only way to have any idea is to implement it. I have said before, I may be sceptical, but I am sceptical in many things. Not just other people's predictions, I am sceptical of my own as well. Which is why I want to see this implemented. Worst case scenario: I am right, and a lot of players are disappointed, best case scenario: I am wrong and a lot of players are having fun. I have no problem with being proven wrong.

  8. #263
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    Since all what I described is what your Power needs you to do, then you have to defend. Powers would provide patrol routes, rotas to cover systems, proper organisation like that what exists now. Power groups are incredibly well organised, motivated and are task oriented- but then you never actually played Powerplay, have you? The BGS is quite different to organising and actually fortifying/ UM or expanding.
    Yes, yes... I understand. The three years I spent helping flip systems that favor ALD's ethos wasn't real Powerplay, and never helped her one single bit. Neither did the four months I spent hauling fortification merits, where unpledged gankers were by far the largest threat to me finishing a fortification run, compared to the two actually pledged Powerplayers that attacked me in that all time.

    I've heard it before.

    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    You seem to be under the impression attackers and defenders have the attention spans of a goldfish, and that haulers are eternal victims. Since the new Powerplay will be in a smaller area attacks won't be random, and that just as a Power is forced to defend, that does not mean they are not striking back at the same time.
    I've been playing online games like this since before Ultima Online was a glimmer in Richard Garriot's eye, and in all that time, people haven't fundamentally changed, nor have the challenges that online gaming brings.

    I'm not under the "impression that attackers and defenders have the attention spans of goldfish."

    I have experienced, time and time again, that those who prefer to attack will maximize their advantages to ensure that their attack is successful, and will often ignore orders to defend a target when they see an opportunity to attack. I have been on that a team of raiders attacking a defended position, and know that players will use alts to scout ahead, perhaps even using one pledged to the defenders, to decide which target is the easiest to attack.

    I have experienced, time and time again, that those who prefer to defend will get frustrated because either nothing happens and they've earned nothing for their time spent defending, or end up on the wrong end of a curb-stomp battle and which results in negative progress. I have been a part of the defending team, who either gets overwhelmed trying to fight five to one odds, or as part of a response team who find nothing but corpses by the time we get to the location of a raid.

    And I've experienced , time and time again, the mass exodus that occurs when those who would rather not PvP decide its time to find better things to do, to the point where games that were designed as PvE games with freeform-PvP either decide that a PvP switch was a fundamentally good idea after all, or had to shut down their servers because they can't afford to run and develop the game anymore.

    And these were all client-server games. I don't even want to think about all the headaches that this game, and its P2P matchmaker, will bring to that particular experience.

    I do agree that if either of Sandro's efforts to force non-PvP PowerPlayers into Open goes forward, that each Power's territory will be smaller. Perhaps once all Powers are reduced to their capitals and one or two control systems, things might work much better. For your sake, I hope that Open Only Powerplay will be one of those rare exceptions (like EVE Online) that somehow make everything work. Personally, I intend to go along for the ride, because regardless of what ultimately happens with Powerplay, for a few months at least, things might be as lively as it was when it first came out, before the majority find out that it isn't really as fun as they thought it was, and find better things to do.

    It certainly can't get any worse than it was this morning. I managed to get two hours in this morning, and I saw nobody at all. No pledged Powerplayers at Kamadhenu or the system I'm fortifying. Nobody at Deciat when I decided to add a new engineered FSD to my proverbial tool kit.

    Nobody.

    Not surprising, really. I don't sleep in on my "weekends," so there isn't a lot of people playing at 4am.

  9. #264
    The new Powerplay will have defined zones, so the areas in question will not be huge to begin with.

    The trap people are generally falling into is thinking that escort means patrol. It won't because thats a horrific waste of time.

    I see it going one of two ways:

    1: small Powers will fortify en masse for each system in turn- so tyat they have as many attackers available at that point to fend off intruders.

    2: large powers will have more dedicated structures that will be more specialised.

    A lot of guesswork will be involved in defending, as well as attacking. You can sit in realspace near a station while a scout in SC will plaintext a trigger word to signal to jump to SC to either attack or defend. I can see a potential relog exploit of sorts here, but it would mean lots of ships could be hiding in plain sight and you'd never know- like landmines.

    General scouting and behaviour analysis of your opponent will be more important. How does he fortify? What do they fly? Relative strength? Currently only fortification patterns are useful to turmoil but this will open out.

    Communication: open air triggers and wing / squadron comms will be vital in co-ordination. Inbound fortifiers will need to update defenders as to ETA's otherwise they will gift windows of attack to the opposition.

    Close escort will not be possible, simply as high end interdictors can grab you all over, even from the front- in theory you could hang back and cover the back of the hauler, but you will need to be close enough to grab an attacker before they grab your freighter.

    A lot of fort runs will be planned ahead of time in hot areas- they will be timed and everyone will have a role.

    Haulers will be the most valuable piece of the puzzle, as they will be the ones out of pocket if they get destroyed, and if they run out of cash they need to make more credits and are out of action. It might be a rota in that fortifiers rotate into attack roles. In any case guaranteed forts will crease to be until they are docked in the capital.

    Attackers will be after fortifiers, UMing systems, expanding (if a combat power) and defending. A power will plan ahead as to what activity needs doing.

    In small powers that I've served in (Antal and Kumo) everyone has dedicated systems they fortify and are responsible for. If we cannot cover them someone else volunteers. All pledges fort at one point, or help out- in my experience its very rare that someone does not help out.

  10. #265
    Yes, yes... I understand. The three years I spent helping flip systems that favor ALD's ethos wasn't real Powerplay
    Because its not. You are not hauling/ expanding/ UMing anything in Powerplay terms, you are altering the triggers but playing the BGS which is entirely different, and much more varied.

    Neither did the four months I spent hauling fortification merits
    And try hauling merits every cycle for 3 years for small powers to see how it shakes out. I imagine all your opposition were trying to fight off the 5C.

  11. #266
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    Because its not. You are not hauling/ expanding/ UMing anything in Powerplay terms, you are altering the triggers but playing the BGS which is entirely different, and much more varied.
    Thankfully, Frontier disagrees with you, so I'll be able to earn merits and be a "real" PowerPlayer.

    Also, thankfully, my Power's leadership also disagrees with you, which is why they include BGS manipulation as part of their strategy. You can cut fortification costs by up to 2/3rds by ensuring the right type of governments are in place... or increase another Power's fortification costs by three times by ensuring the wrong​ type of governments are in place.

    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    And try hauling merits every cycle for 3 years for small powers to see how it shakes out. I imagine all your opposition were trying to fight off the 5C.
    Ah, yes... that must've been it. 5C activities were in place on day one of Powerplay. Got it.

    As for not doing anything but hauling fortification merits for three years...

    On the one hand, I could use my average available gaming time of three hours a week to deliver around 200 fortification credits, assuming that I sunk every credit I managed to earn while waiting for my next allotment to spawn, and never advance beyond the Cobra III I was flying at the time.

    On the other hand, I could use my three hours a week, plus all the experience I'd gained up to the release of 1.3 manipulating the BGS for fun and profit, to ensure that roughly a dozen ALD systems I'd adopted had governments that favored her, thus reducing the fortification costs of the control system by roughly 5000 merits... or 10,000 if they had governments that were actively hostile to her.

  12. #267
    Originally Posted by Rubbernuke View Post (Source)
    The trap people are generally falling into is thinking that escort means patrol. It won't because thats a horrific waste of time.
    I hope, and expect since we were talking directly at each other, you aren't referring to me.

  13. #268
    Originally Posted by Darkfyre99 View Post (Source)
    If my experience in past games are repeated in Open Only Powerplay:

    In my experience, the vast majority of guards find "escort missions" to be unappealing, and are thus easily distracted by decoys, leaving the haulers they're supposed to be protecting vulnerable to raiders. Said raiders also use alt accounts to scout the opposition, and strike with overwhelming force. Most haulers get frustrated with the whole situation and quit, looking for something they actually enjoy doing, as opposed to ending up as living MacGuffins to be fought over.

    The few remaining haulers are those who play outside of prime time and thus have a better chance of playing without being attacked frequently, enjoy the challenge of completing their tasks without relying on the dubious protection of the guards, or both.

    See above.

    Ah, so that's where all the guards who are supposed to keeping the home fires lit have snuck off to.

    In my experience, defense in games like Elite: Dangerous rarely works. The advantage will always go to the aggressor, who has the advantage:
    • of choosing WHEN to attack
    • of choosing WHERE to attack
    • of having the numerical advantage
    • of having the intelligence advantage, due to the use of alt accounts


    I can't count the number of times that the PvPers who were supposed to be defending the "non-combatants" either got slaughtered because they were outnumbered ten to one, spent their entire night reacting to another faction's raiders, but not actually fighting them, and only occasionally getting into an actual fight because the opposition started being predictable about the order of their raids.

    By all accounts, both the raiders and the reaction force have tons of fun. The "non-combatants," and those who are actually willing to do guard duty, rarely do.
    I've been thinking the past couple of days and come to the same conclusion.

    The problem here with PP is the document trading that underlies it. One person is supposed to take them from A to B, in a trading ship (we assume), and then there's the beefed up war ship waiting for them at the arriving station. Which part is easier to do and has the most excitement? The war ship, I believe. The hauler's excitement is only that he/she managed to survive, but the attack will be experienced negatively. In the long run, there won't be any haulers.

    What could happen though is that all document trading will be done with the same or similar beefed up war ships. There will be a lot fewer documents moved per week, making the power shifts less frequent. Things will stabilize more. Less changes in power domains, I suspect, and PP might become a bit boring from that perspective. PvP will be the only thing interesting in PP.

  14. #269
    Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post (Source)
    Disco!

    The attacker has all the advantages and can choose the engagement. You could imagine scenarios where attackers are thwarted by the defending escorts coming to the rescue of the hauler, but in reality, the advantage that the attacker has will always result in asymmetric engagements.

    You cannot provide cover for all your haulers. It's inefficient and the numbers don't add up.
    Therefor the attacker can pick and chose the weakest targets. Because that makes sense. You will try to have the greatest impact and the least amount of resistance.
    Because of this, the escorts will get bored, because they're either just following the haulers around, or get jumped by a superiour force. Not a fun job, and they'd be more efficient attacking other haulers.
    So it stands to reason that haulers will be left to their own devices.
    The kind of gameplay this provides is the shooting fish in a barrel gameplay that is already present during CGs.
    The haulers are the ones who are taking all the risk, so it's no wonder some of the PvP aficionados are hailing this as the greatest idea evahr! (Note: indeed there are haulers who are loving this, but are they representative of the kind of numbers you need to make it happen?)

    Also, if the amount of haulers vs the amount of hauler-shooters isn't balanced, you either get shark tanks where the hauler guppy goes in and gets mauled, or the percentage of haulers that can be stopped is so low, it makes the most sense to just throw numbers of haulers at it.
    I agree with you, but I think that the haulers could work on engineering fast escapes, like beefed up shields, high speed thruster, fast FSD recharge and similar.

    What FDev needs to do is to buff the mines again, and bring in a "Interdictor de-tethering" that can break an interdiction attempt. Also a "Decoy" limpet that will signal my ships signal while I'm going into cloak. Right now, the offensive have the upper hand with tools, toys, and tricks. That has to change to even make it fun to play. Elite is a bit of whackamole, where the document movers are just moles without any or little ways of avoiding being hit with a mallet.

  15. #270
    Originally Posted by Darkfyre99 View Post (Source)
    Yes, yes... I understand. The three years I spent helping flip systems that favor ALD's ethos wasn't real Powerplay, and never helped her one single bit. Neither did the four months I spent hauling fortification merits, where unpledged gankers were by far the largest threat to me finishing a fortification run, compared to the two actually pledged Powerplayers that attacked me in that all time.

    I've heard it before.



    I've been playing online games like this since before Ultima Online was a glimmer in Richard Garriot's eye, and in all that time, people haven't fundamentally changed, nor have the challenges that online gaming brings.

    I'm not under the "impression that attackers and defenders have the attention spans of goldfish."

    I have experienced, time and time again, that those who prefer to attack will maximize their advantages to ensure that their attack is successful, and will often ignore orders to defend a target when they see an opportunity to attack. I have been on that a team of raiders attacking a defended position, and know that players will use alts to scout ahead, perhaps even using one pledged to the defenders, to decide which target is the easiest to attack.

    I have experienced, time and time again, that those who prefer to defend will get frustrated because either nothing happens and they've earned nothing for their time spent defending, or end up on the wrong end of a curb-stomp battle and which results in negative progress. I have been a part of the defending team, who either gets overwhelmed trying to fight five to one odds, or as part of a response team who find nothing but corpses by the time we get to the location of a raid.

    And I've experienced , time and time again, the mass exodus that occurs when those who would rather not PvP decide its time to find better things to do, to the point where games that were designed as PvE games with freeform-PvP either decide that a PvP switch was a fundamentally good idea after all, or had to shut down their servers because they can't afford to run and develop the game anymore.

    And these were all client-server games. I don't even want to think about all the headaches that this game, and its P2P matchmaker, will bring to that particular experience.

    I do agree that if either of Sandro's efforts to force non-PvP PowerPlayers into Open goes forward, that each Power's territory will be smaller. Perhaps once all Powers are reduced to their capitals and one or two control systems, things might work much better. For your sake, I hope that Open Only Powerplay will be one of those rare exceptions (like EVE Online) that somehow make everything work. Personally, I intend to go along for the ride, because regardless of what ultimately happens with Powerplay, for a few months at least, things might be as lively as it was when it first came out, before the majority find out that it isn't really as fun as they thought it was, and find better things to do.

    It certainly can't get any worse than it was this morning. I managed to get two hours in this morning, and I saw nobody at all. No pledged Powerplayers at Kamadhenu or the system I'm fortifying. Nobody at Deciat when I decided to add a new engineered FSD to my proverbial tool kit.

    Nobody.

    Not surprising, really. I don't sleep in on my "weekends," so there isn't a lot of people playing at 4am.
    Nice post. There's experience talking. Agree with it all.

    The powers will most likely shrink like your saying because only the places that have heavy defense will be standing unchanged. Most of the game play will be trying to defend and stop documents. Few will be the document movers.