I'm in favour of this. We need more tools to organize.
Powerplay Collusion Piracy and More
- Thread starter Sandro Sammarco
- Start date
I am all for anything that will improve the Power Play experience (a great concept, but poorly executed). The ideas you put forward, Sandro, are very good, but I also think we need more means by which we can influence control of systems-namely conventional missions with a Power Play flavour, that allow you to both earn decent money & influence control of a system by a given power.
1) This needs to be a two-phase process (select system to withdraw from, then a retreat phase) to avoid dropping systems by sabotage votes near the voting deadline. I think it would be completely fine if a power can only withdraw from 1 system per cycle, to make it simple. I think there are two ways to make the selection process work better than a simple upvote-only poll:
- Allow downvoting. This is still reactionary and cannot in be used against last-minute sabotage votes, unless the deadline for downvoting is later than the upvoting deadline.
- The votes could be weighted by the inverse of CC income of the given system. The reason for this is simple: there is already a mechanism for losing systems with high CC income - turmoil. Low income systems are exactly those that are often near-impossible to lose via turmoil (intentional or not). For example a system with 6 CC base income and 22 default upkeep is in practice impossible to lose in a turmoil before a system with 28 default upkeep. Systems with high base income are usually super easy to lose via turmoil.
2) That could work, depending on the details
3) Totally for it
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.
For clarity, collusion piracy is when Commanders intentionally let fortification commodities be taken by opposing powers in order to undermine their own power: sabotage, often called "fifth column" activities.
Collusion piracy is only available between powers that share the same superpower, because only in such cases is piracy an option to undermine.
There are two sides, as far as I see, to collusion piracy:
1) It's a great way to undermine
2) It's a great way to shed poor performing control systems (sometimes gained as the result of sabotage)
Paradox? Just maybe.
Anyway, here's my perspective at the moment.
I really don't like collusion piracy (or fifth column activities as they stand). However, I understand how it is currently a very useful tool.
So should we introduce effects to degrade collusion piracy, we will try to make sure that at the same time we introduce changes to help Commanders counter the other methods of sabotage.
The choices we're currently looking at regarding sabotage are:
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.
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.
3) Introducing a combo mechanism for fortification allotments, limiting the purchase of rushed allotments based on successful deliveries - the more you deliver the more you can pay to rush - whilst adding temporary fortification disbarring for losing fortification commodities.
It should be noted that none of these features would be able to completely prevent sabotage. However, taken in unison the effect could potentially be significant.
If you get the time, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these concepts.
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.
My thinking for this? At the moment, any way I slice it, I can't come to any conclusion other than Commanders in Open Play have a tougher time than those in Private Groups or Solo. So the playing field is basically uneven as it stands and in this case, maybe change could make things better.
Now, one final Caveat. *As it stands currently*, we have time allotted in season two to work on Powerplay. These suggestions are just a part of that work - there is other stuff as well. However, I can't commit to the Unbreakable Vow, because it's very possible that in the fluid world of development, things might change!
I just wanted to set these ideas free and see how well they settle, so, comments welcome!
Sandro Sammarco
Hi Sandro
Why are Antal and Sirius considered enemies? They have had several article featured on galnet where they have agreed non agression and have actively worked along side each other for over a year without any hostilities. The change to their status from Allies to Enemies is not based on anything published in game, any activity in game or anything the players have do and it goes against what has been published in game and what the players have actively worked on together. This seem to be an oversight by FD who have 'fixed' a bug (over a year in to Power Play) that was never there in the case of these two power. Please can you return these two powers to allied status or atleast give an explanation based in teh game lore why they are Enemy status becuase so far one does exist. INfact the oppositie exists. Cheers o7
PS sorry if that was bit long winded, Im not great with words.
And I would prefer every Power to be undermined by piracy, reinforcing the idea that these Powers aren't endorsing open warfare between their followers, just criminal activities to undermine each other's influence. (And if that was the only way to undermine, FDev would have to balance the situation to make a 1:1 ratio for merit:cargo actually be reasonable.)
Like everything in PP, collusion was unintended and exploitable. It's a shame it has been removed as it was the only real self management tool available to trim systems. But, just like 5c exploit prep and grinders exploit easy systems for merits, it's been fiddled with but never fixed.
Really PP powers need ways to retreat from systems, but sadly this would be exploited too as the whole design of PP is essentially wrong. So you're left with something half working, or nothing at all- which supports the idea that Powers were never meant to shed systems, and they only do in collapse or uncontrolled turmoil.
Last edited:
I wouldn't be happy with Ben's proposal unless it applied to Archon Delaine. Can't have a couple of independents having one rule and the other not having the option, eh?
Piracy collusion, 5c, loss of players? Seems like powerplay needs a rework. I will return when it has, but I'm not holding my breath.
Piracy collusion, 5c, loss of players? Seems like powerplay needs a rework. I will return when it has, but I'm not holding my breath.
It hasn't been removed. It is available to super powers with multiple power characters, which means Empire and Federation.
I always thought Archon could do what Antal did, since they have the same methods of expansion and fortification (blow stuff up, ship naughty people back home) (I could and possibly am wrong on that though).
You are right that its not fair, and really each power needs the same method of system management otherwise it gets confusing. The Alliance is another power where they could not do anything as they had no mirror power to 'help'. Being sat above everyone helped them though
This all suggests that PP is indeed in need of an overhaul, as the only reason why many powers are still alive is through creatively using exploits / features.
If / when the fabled dev time does happen for PP, I certainly hope we are well informed about it, and that if time is that short its us the players that decide what gets fixed, as we are the ones who know the system better than anyone.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Really? Balls. Lets make it even more super confusing
There was a point where people told FDev that it didn't make sense that Kumo treated Utopia and Sirius as allies, so FDev 'fixed' it, making all independents hostile and killing the piracy option. Then with 2.1 it 'unfixed'. Check the bug reports from that time, and you'll see that operating as allies was reported as a bug. So FDev reinstated that 'fix' thereby removing the collusion piracy option for SCRAP.
I know us ALD players were adamant that they couldn't remove collusion piracy as an option for us, as it was the only way to fight massive 5c. Of course, now the 5c is using it against us, and, well, that's tough to handle, too.
Yes, of course it needs an overhaul. It's like they designed it under the impression that no one would ever really be interested in it, even though they told us that this was how the story would progress going forward. (Which it hasn't. Story still focuses on CG outcomes.)
I know us ALD players were adamant that they couldn't remove collusion piracy as an option for us, as it was the only way to fight massive 5c. Of course, now the 5c is using it against us, and, well, that's tough to handle, too.
Yes, of course it needs an overhaul. It's like they designed it under the impression that no one would ever really be interested in it, even though they told us that this was how the story would progress going forward. (Which it hasn't. Story still focuses on CG outcomes.)
This is the problem, the whole design is open to abuse, meaning no solution will really fix the issues. If that's the case, then it needs radical change otherwise the whole cycle will start again with new powers becoming disillusioned and players leaving.
If the collusion piracy merits/hour were nerfed it would just make regular undermining of an allied power through piracy even more unattractive. Granted basically no one does this right now already (or did it offensively in the past), I wouldn't be surprised if many people didn't even know that it worked with how bad the PP ingame information is (and maybe some tried with supplies from hostile powers already). I'd rather see the piracy undermining between friendly powers completely gone right now all it does is giving the Fed & Imp powers CC control tools the others don't have (that having too high CC balances is a very bad thing is another problem) and potential trouble in the presence of 5C. They could just enable standard undermining between allied powers but leave allied NPCs friendly before they came up with something better.
Collusion piracy (collusion being the operative word, as it is done between players, not to NPCs) needs to go away for a couple of reasons.
1) It can be used to generate free money. A and B are friends and pledges to different allied powers. A and B each spend 20 million on fast tracking and swapping merits and in return they are both paid 50 million by each of their powers.
2) It is not available to all powers in a different way than combat vs trade expansions.
Make merits taken from players worth 0 merits. You can still kill them or make them dump their merits to keep them from handing it in and thus delaying them. Alternatively get rid of the free money by making merits taken from players worth 1 merit. This will make collusion piracy far more difficult and gets rid of the money making exploit.
Make merits taken from NPCs worth more AND increase the merits dropped by the ships vary by ship size. Pirating a Type-9 should result in a huge amount of merits being dropped, and that simply isn't the case at the moment.
1) It can be used to generate free money. A and B are friends and pledges to different allied powers. A and B each spend 20 million on fast tracking and swapping merits and in return they are both paid 50 million by each of their powers.
2) It is not available to all powers in a different way than combat vs trade expansions.
Make merits taken from players worth 0 merits. You can still kill them or make them dump their merits to keep them from handing it in and thus delaying them. Alternatively get rid of the free money by making merits taken from players worth 1 merit. This will make collusion piracy far more difficult and gets rid of the money making exploit.
Make merits taken from NPCs worth more AND increase the merits dropped by the ships vary by ship size. Pirating a Type-9 should result in a huge amount of merits being dropped, and that simply isn't the case at the moment.
Last edited:
As I've stated elsewhere, piracy needs to be fully embraced. If NPC supply ships are only going to carry 25t of PP supplies per Type 9, then they at least need to carry 25t of gold or palladium, too.
But more importantly, rewarding battle cows should contain more than a pittance of goods.
Piracy as the only form of undermining fits best with the Lore and would require FDev to refine the piracy gameplay so that it actually makes sense.
But, yeah, no one seems to like that idea, either because they have no faith in FDev balancing piracy appropriately, or because they like blowing up cargo ships. I'm not sure.
Increase the probability of actual piracy and collusion piracy gets left alone to remain focused on deficit management.
Remind me again why only a limited selection of powers should get to use this mechanic?
They shouldn't, not unless they have an ability to offset this disadvantage.
It would have been nice for each power to be truly unique and have drastically different ways to play- for example the Kumo have a mobile base like Jaques and act like the barbarians of Civ.
In answer to your question (to which you know the answer), allied Powers issue demerits to within Superpower kills.
As I stated in the post, if all Powers are undermined via piracy, then every Power gets access to collusion piracy.
Fix/balance piracy, rather than writing off piracy as a bad mechanic of Power Play.
The entire game would benefit from a better balance pass on piracy, and Power Play would be one instance.