Page 2 of 43 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 644

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Collusion Piracy and More

  1. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #16
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee
    Hello Commanders!

    As has been noted, the concept of punitive measures against (what I now suspect is "handshake undermining" ) is:

    We remove the ability to automatically fast track infinite allottments.

    The more Powerplay commodities you deliver successfully, the more allotmentsyou can fast track.

    If you lose Powerplay commodities, unintentionally or on purpose, you temporarily lose the ability to collect allotments, and this measure ends you have to build up your fast track combo from scratch.

  2. #17
    Originally Posted by Enef View Post (Source)
    Ah but we can fast track as much as we want anyway already surely as long as we have the money?
    Perhaps by being able to fast track more than your rank allotment at the same cost per merit? It would at least be faster and less annoying, if not any cheaper. Probably would be more aimed at limiting the supply for fortification failures than rewarding fortification successes. But I don't think he meant having to pay more per merit to be able to fast track. I thought that was your initial concern.

  3. #18
    Another thought:

    One potential positive side effect might be making PvP Piracy more relevant: 5 merits per cargo is quite lucrative is you're able to accost fortifiers and loot them of their haul.

    Will this unfairly benefit some powers over others? Powers with inbound fortification will have their traders clustered in the capital system, whereas outbound will have theirs diffuse

    I suppose this issue was present already, but any bonus to Open fortification will make it a lot more relevant.

    Oh, one more request: Could you allow non-aligned powers to pirate one another? It does annoy me that as a pledger to the pirate power, I can only pirate 2/9 enemy factions

  4. #19
    Can we get a "Fill hold for XXXCr" button?

    Assuming we have worked our way up to fast track that amount of course.

  5. #20
    Sandro,

    I think that everything you're considering would help PowerPlay tremendously. It seems that you gave some serious thoughts about the whole 5th column problem and I believe those solutions, even though would not remove completely the 5th column activities, would help to curb their excesses. At the same time, having some system of vote to get rid of profit losing systems would make the need to do collusion piracy totally unnecessary, which is a win-win proposition. Having been part of PowerPlay since its introduction, I highly encourage you to put those changes in the game as soon as possible. It really seems that what you are proposing would address the most pressing and serious problems in PowerPlay at the moment.

    Thank you for your consideration!

  6. #21
    I still need time to digest all the proposed changes and formulate a response, but I would like to express my gratitude for the communication and for the evidence of ongoing support for PowerPlay and ideas to make it better for the community. Thank you.

  7. This is the last staff post in this thread. #22
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee
    Hello Commanders!

    Always good to get feedback (positive or negative) on stuff we chew over ourselves, it really does help us set our bearing as we go forwards (even if the journey might take a while and suffer stranger tides en route).

    As is the norm, I will be running silent now, but feel free to continue, even if I don't make a reappearance here, I'll still be following the thread, ready to suck its marrow dry of all the juicy goodness.

  8. #23
    Just a thought, but how would the Open mode bonus work for something like fortifying? Hopefully you wouldn't be able to collect fortifications in open, deliver them in open, but travel between systems in group or solo. Would defeat the whole purpose if you could just land at the station and switch modes.

    I remember this being a condition of the Titan X treasure hunt (and triple elite contest), but I assumed that was just a dev review of the winner's logs. Does the game have the ability to track whether the whole applicable powerplay activity was done in open, and not just the transactions?

  9. #24
    Has any work on revamping the powerplay module rewards been done yet, conceptual or otherwise? Half of them are useless for ships larger than a Sidewinder, one of them reportedly doesn't even work (heat laser), while another (Guanoscrambler) is a major spit in the face of serious pirates. Hammers and Prismatics are decidedly way more useful than their regular counterparts.

  10. #25
    My two cents:

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!
    1) Creating a voting system to allow Commanders, by the act of majority will, to withdraw from poor control systems, ensuring mechanisms are in place to prevent profitable systems from being voted out.
    While the difficulty to get rid of bad systems is a major part why 5th column tactics to push bad systems on prep lists are so damaging, a simple withdraw by vote mechanic could change the whole competitive part of PowerPlay to the worse. If factions can just easily rid themselves of bad systems, what would prevent a situation where all powers had good CC surpluses due to lack of bad systems? Each power with enough fortifiers could only be pushed into Turmoil by massive undermining snipe attacks, but to have to much CC at the end of a cycle (to prevent sniping) would not be a problem since bad new systems wouldn't stay in the power.

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!
    2) Utilising an UP / DOWN vote feature, which would exist primarily to be a channel of communication within the game for pledged Commanders) to also provide veto functionality at the preparation stage, allowing, by the act of majority will, poor control system candidates from being purchased as expansion targets.
    In principle this is a nice idea, I fear the problem lies in the lacking knowledge about PowerPlay many players not using external information sources have. If you look at the high amounts of grinder activity (i.e. fortification of systems like Groombridge 1618) the sheer number of those people can lead to popular vote choices that are actually very bad for a power. Many players don't even know about the existence of overhead costs and assume every system with bigger base income than upkeep costs is good, opening up opportunities for 5th column players to prepare systems that look good to uninformed players but are actually terrible. Additionally there can be expansion targets that are not profitable for a faction but valid strategic choices nonetheless, especially weaponized expansions that harm economies of rival powers by contesting systems (but have poor income and could be probably downvoted heavily therefore).

    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders
    And since I'm in the mood for pulling hand grenades , here's another thing to chew on: I'm currently rather taken by the concept of a success multiplier for Commanders in Open Play. this modifier would not improve personal gains from power play activities, but it would magnify the effectiveness of a power's actions (expand, oppose, fortify, undermine). And the effect would probably be significant.
    I think this would be great. Incentives for players to take higher risks by being in Open through increasing the effects of their efforts can only add to the game imo. Opposition of those efforts would also be more meaningful, right now there is not much sense in setting up a blockade for a system it just drives players in the other modes. The only problem could be possible imbalance effects, i.e. a power that fortifies by hauling from their HQ to their control systems would be much harder to oppose than one that fortifies the other way round (only one system to block).

  11. #26
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    As has been noted, the concept of punitive measures against (what I now suspect is "handshake undermining" ) is:

    We remove the ability to automatically fast track infinite allottments.

    The more Powerplay commodities you deliver successfully, the more allotmentsyou can fast track.

    If you lose Powerplay commodities, unintentionally or on purpose, you temporarily lose the ability to collect allotments, and this measure ends you have to build up your fast track combo from scratch.
    This is perfect. It stops handshake undermining being overused and it doesn't hit us heavy haulers. I have to say I very much approve.

  12. #27
    What about a boost to fortification delived in a wing in the open. Increasing the effective fortifcation delivered by a cargo ship based on the number of escorts in the wing, with merits granted to the escort ships providing protection.

  13. #28
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    1) Creating a voting system to allow Commanders, by the act of majority will, to withdraw from poor control systems, ensuring mechanisms are in place to prevent profitable systems from being voted out.
    I really like the idea of this voting system but it would require some failsafe so 5th column coulfn't just drop all their votes at the last minute.
    Maybe players would have certain amount of votes every day and if they don't use them during that time they lose them.

  14. #29
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    There's been quite a lot of interesting discussion about "collusion piracy", and I'd just like to throw some more thoughts into the pot.

    ETC.


    I think those are all solid ideas, Sandro Sammarco.
    Giving more weight to the actions of players who play PP in open is fair.

    It is great to get confirmation that PP gets some love, because I think there's great potential.

  15. #30
    I genuinely couldn't care less about PP. To me it just seems like the grindiest thing in the game. Doing a repetitive action over and over in order to gain a bonus for doing another repetitive action. I realise that there are almost certainly players who don't see it the same way. And that's fine.

    This bonus for playing in open sounds intriguing, though. I'll reserve judgement on it until we see the change to the security response and AI in 2.1.

    I currently play 90% of my time in solo/PG, but a balance between combat and trade vessel interactions and an incentive would make me consider playing in open more.

Page 2 of 43 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast