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

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Yet another whataboutism, nothing constructive to get out of there.

I suggest discussing the topic of the thread, instead of trying to derail into who is (not) responsible for 5C. People already know that, despite what's being posted here.
A short statement from FDev about their intentions of touching powerplay ever again could make these tedious struggles to keep the discussion on topic end quickly and easily.
I'd argue it's very constructive.
It's important to see who is making the complaints and when. My point, which you dismissed very intriguingly as whataboutism, is that the Feds have been accused of far worse. See. Whataboutism, historically has been largely about false equivalences. I'm not trying to make false equivalences. No. I am pointing out that what your side was accused of was actually degrees worse.

It would be easy for a casual observer, who only PP's to cause general chaos, rather than haul and expand (yep, me). To see thus:

Feds, when attacked, complain about foul play by the Imps. In this case. 5C.
Imps, when expansions against them go through, complain of Fed Botting.
The Alliance: My side, as far as I support power play, has observed less than fair play due to what can be described as exploiting a bug by again, the Feds.

No-one here really believes that FDEV will change PP. At least I don't think so, correct me if I am wrong?

In discussing one method of play which is deemed by the community as unfair, should it not also be worth discussing others?

Is it not unsporting to take benefit of bugs, or of known foul play (in botters who are absolutely not affiliated with anyone here)?
 
Isn't the point of the thread for the Federation powers to complain that they are losing at PP & suggesting that other commanders are using tactics/mechanics that do not break the ToS? There is no cheating or exploitation of a UI bug going on here.
I'm sorry to break it to you but there's no way to lose or win Powerplay. The game is designed so neither can happen.

Allowed by the TOS or not, 5C can't be countered and it's an exploit of broken mechanics. If that's how you want to "win", that says more about the empire than it says about the federation, to be honest.
 
FYI Coded also has access to the same channels I do, He probably can't see 5th column activity from the Imperials either.
Because it isn't actually there.

Well. Not in the IHC or Alliance anyway.
Obviously no-one here can account for outliers. See the Fed Rando Brigade described above as the perfect example.
 
Isn't the point of the thread for the Federation powers to complain that they are losing at PP & suggesting that other commanders are using tactics/mechanics that do not break the ToS? There is no cheating or exploitation of a UI bug going on here.
no it's not the point. the point is in the title & the OP of the thread.
part of the discussion is that 5C should break the ToS. Who thinks it shouldn't, sadly doesn't understand fair play and should refrain from commenting on it, as it is harmful for the discussion.
that's the maximum effort i'm willing to invest in responding to troll posts, because i know how useless it can be.
 
FYI Coded also has access to the same channels I do, He probably can't see 5th column activity from the Imperials either.
Because it isn't actually there.

If you can't or don't want to see it that's fine, but an organized and very effective 5C has been present since the first week of the attack. Your powerplay leaders probably agree.
 
Sorry, chaps...but what's a "5C?" 🤷‍♂️
When I first heard the term a week or two ago I swear to god thought it was a planet in a system.

Apparently it's 5th column. When someone joins a PP faction in game with the intention of somehow sabotaging it.
Separate from joining a PP faction for modules/credits/rep bonuses and dumping merits into the wrong place. Which of course never happens.
 
The burden of proof must lie with the accuser.

So show me proof.
I've said this in other posts already. The proof was right there in the Galactic Powers screen for everyone to see the first week of the attack, because the imperials didn't hide anything. There was no snipe, merits were handed in since the first day of the cycle. For anyone familiar with the inner workings of powerplay everything was pretty obvious. Again, ask Mahon powerplay leaders to see what's their opinion.
 
When I first heard the term a week or two ago I swear to god thought it was a planet in a system.

Apparently it's 5th column. When someone joins a PP faction in game with the intention of somehow sabotaging it.
Separate from joining a PP faction for modules/credits/rep bonuses and dumping merits into the wrong place. Which of course never happens.
Ah....sounds covert and sneaky. Anyhow, carry on.

Also, for whatever it's worth...probably nothing. When I did the things for the Duval chick to get the thikkboi sheilds, I did ask where to dump my merits. You're welcome, Empire peeps.
 
Sorry, chaps...but what's a "5C?" 🤷‍♂️
5C (5th column) is a player pledging to a rival power and using poor preparation / expansion / fortification choices to wreck a power from the inside.

Separate from joining a PP faction for modules/credits/rep bonuses and dumping merits into the wrong place. Which of course never happens.
Module shopping practices are easy to spot and have in most cases led to predictable dumping grounds.
 
I've said this in other posts already. The proof was right there in the Galactic Powers screen for everyone to see the first week of the attack, because the imperials didn't hide anything. There was no snipe, merits were handed in since the first day of the cycle. For anyone familiar with the inner workings of powerplay everything was pretty obvious. Again, ask Mahon powerplay leaders to see what's their opinion.
"merits were handed in since the first day of the cycle."
Incorrect.
Only specific systems.

Take my word for it or not. But targets are given, and targets are marked to hold or hand.
If people (including myself) get this wrong. That's on us. But there is an active attempt to obfuscate certain targets.
 
This does however mean that I do get to see the Imperial strategy. It does not rely on 5C.
Objectively, Imperial strategy relies on Hudson being blanket fortified to keep Hudson in turmoil. 5c was involved in that blanket fortification - we've discussed this at length in this thread.

The burden of proof must lie with the accuser.

So show me proof.
You'll find that covered in my previous replies.

You did however take advantage of an introduced bug where held merits were invisible.
Which is probably worse, in the whole sporting vs not sporting spectrum.
Honestly doesn't matter, it just gives me an excuse to undermine systems.
The playing field was level - we were as vulnerable to it as you were, and had no way of knowing if and when that bug would be fixed. The Federation braced for months for a snipe that never came.

It's an advantage both sides have openly benefited from over the years - it take a stretch to compare that to 5c.

"merits were handed in since the first day of the cycle."
Incorrect.
Only specific systems.

Take my word for it or not. But targets are given, and targets are marked to hold or hand.
If people (including myself) get this wrong. That's on us. But there is an active attempt to obfuscate certain targets.
I'm sure that was the case - but there was no attempt to obfuscate the fact that Hudson was being undermined, and that you were angling for a large-scale UM operation. As I explained before: had 5c not succeeded in blanketing us, a partial hand-in by cycle tick would still have left Hudson with a golden opportunity to scrap. We had pilots on the ready to red-team Hudson for that very reason.
 
I'd argue it's very constructive.
It's important to see who is making the complaints and when. My point, which you dismissed very intriguingly as whataboutism, is that the Feds have been accused of far worse. See. Whataboutism, historically has been largely about false equivalences. I'm not trying to make false equivalences. No. I am pointing out that what your side was accused of was actually degrees worse.
...
It's actually not, because it's now become the essence of whataboutism: comparing which action is meaner... 5C or exploiting an UI bug. Btw, it's clearly 5C, which does not mean that it's right to exploit a game bug (or bad game design like 5Cers to e.g.).

Being a Hudson CMDR I can say that there's a wide set of rules that prohibits many of the stated actions, which sadly doesn't guarantee that all people follow it. What I can guarantee though, is that people who argue like you and other posters here do, wouldn't last a week in our community, because that's being considered defending 5C by distraction.

So i ask you once again to either give your suggestion to stopping this obvious problem, or refrain from damaging the discussion with antivaxer-like methods.
 
And this is frowned upon? Serious question.
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.
 
Geniune question from me.

Red team.

Now, to me red team is the IT guys who try to hack your own side. To find security issues which Blue team can then fix.

Is that like saying you guys 5C yourselves to lose lossmaker systems?
 
Geniune question from me.

Red team.

Now, to me red team is the IT guys who try to hack your own side. To find security issues which Blue team can then fix.

Is that like saying you guys 5C yourselves to lose lossmaker systems?
Not 5c'ing ourselves, but undermining our own systems to lose lossmakers, yes.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom