Yes, that's precisely what I'm driving at.
I like this idea a lot! I'll tag it in the OP.
Powerplay Disincentivizing the 5th Column in PP
- Thread starter Corrigendum
- Start date
- Status
Yes, that's precisely what I'm driving at.
I like this idea a lot! I'll tag it in the OP.
It is a terrible idea and one I can't see FD ever implementing because it has the potential to limit the number of players who can participate.
Take for example the type of fortifying where fortification materials are taken from the capital to the control system. If a power has 30 control systems hard-capped at 100%, that equates to 3000% of available fortification activity. Once that 3000% has been satisfied, no other player can participate in that activity for that power until the next cycle. Even scaling the merit rewards above 100% potentially penalises players who can only play late-on in a cycle.
Another example is shared by undermining and the type of fortifying where materials are taken from the control system to the capital. Players who are trying to finish the system off may end up having wasted their time and effort (hard cap) or receive fewer merits (scaling) because another Cmdr has docked and claimed 2 minutes before they got there. Any merits they hold are wasted or worth less because they are tied to the specific system and there's no way to redistribute them and no-one has any idea who else is flying around holding merits for the same system.
Imo, no changes should be made to fortification or undermining, the one thing you can say about the current system is that it places no limitation the number of people who can participate at any time in the cycle for the same rewards.
5th columning during preparation needs to be looked at I believe. It's a legitimate tactic against an enemy and within the rules of play. If you are in conflict with another power, would you not use any method at your disposal, including covert action? The problem right now is that as far as I am aware, there's currently no way to counter it effectively, no 'counter-espionage' actions that a power can take. FD should either increase the pledged-time requirements before being allowed to haul preparation materials, maybe to 2-3 weeks or introduce some method for the power to carry out counter-espionage activities.
One further addition would be an option to vote for "Do not expand". This would provide a way to prevent expanding at all when it is not in the powers interest. Also, this will likely need to be the default action to take if the power is in turmoil.
I fear the '5th' will keep existing. Especially with palyers not reading the forums or reddit who have no idea about anything, will keep remaining in the dark and so damaging the powers.
Now everything is balanced since every power has more or less the same relative amount of '5th players'. That doesn't make it less annoying to see the triggers at 10.000%.
Some kind of ingame communication would be awesome.
In another game, players could vote for leaders in their power (limited between 2-4 weeks leadership, then new votes take place). The leader is able to write global power notes and to organize (in case of success) happy hours. Could be a double credit payout in Elite.
But the key mechanic is the communication. the leader is able to directly post global information(s) and everyone, regardless of forum/reddit user or not, will read that ingame creating an effective way to corrdinate casual players and merit grinders.
Now everything is balanced since every power has more or less the same relative amount of '5th players'. That doesn't make it less annoying to see the triggers at 10.000%.
Some kind of ingame communication would be awesome.
In another game, players could vote for leaders in their power (limited between 2-4 weeks leadership, then new votes take place). The leader is able to write global power notes and to organize (in case of success) happy hours. Could be a double credit payout in Elite.
But the key mechanic is the communication. the leader is able to directly post global information(s) and everyone, regardless of forum/reddit user or not, will read that ingame creating an effective way to corrdinate casual players and merit grinders.
The main problem of 5th columning comes from a few factors:
1. It is very hard to directly attack a power. All you can do is undermining or opposing expansions. Both are easily countered, and both are easily cured. 5th columning offers a way to attack a power in a lasting way, causing more damage per time-unit invested than anything else.
2. There is no easy way to cure the damage done by 5th columning. If a 5th column tries to prepare a bad system for you, you are stuck with it. Unless you
- go into turmoil on the expansion turn, leading to a probable loss of additional systems (due to bugs)
- do 5th columning yourself to outprepare the system for some other power
- outprepare the preparation, with possible maximum 1:10 effort (for maximum numbers of expansions)
- oppose the expansion by 5th columning, possibly with 1:5 effort.
3. you cannot stop a bad expansion outside of 5th columning yourself
So it'd be good if powers could
- attack other power's systems or attack them in a meaningful way besides opposition and undermining.
have more options to decide about preparations, apart from grinding. You cannot outgrind a bad preparation, it takes usually 2-7 times as much effort than the bad preparation
- somehow oppose their own expansions
- get rid of bad systems. Especially the Empire powers are stuck with lots of horrible systems from the first turns, and would likely love to get rid of them. Same for most other powers. The powers cannot form the board they want to play with. They are stuck with the bad systems from the initial seed or the first turns.
5th columning is not the problem. The problem are lacking game mechanics. 5th columning is just the symptom.
1. It is very hard to directly attack a power. All you can do is undermining or opposing expansions. Both are easily countered, and both are easily cured. 5th columning offers a way to attack a power in a lasting way, causing more damage per time-unit invested than anything else.
2. There is no easy way to cure the damage done by 5th columning. If a 5th column tries to prepare a bad system for you, you are stuck with it. Unless you
- go into turmoil on the expansion turn, leading to a probable loss of additional systems (due to bugs)
- do 5th columning yourself to outprepare the system for some other power
- outprepare the preparation, with possible maximum 1:10 effort (for maximum numbers of expansions)
- oppose the expansion by 5th columning, possibly with 1:5 effort.
3. you cannot stop a bad expansion outside of 5th columning yourself
So it'd be good if powers could
- attack other power's systems or attack them in a meaningful way besides opposition and undermining.
have more options to decide about preparations, apart from grinding. You cannot outgrind a bad preparation, it takes usually 2-7 times as much effort than the bad preparation
- somehow oppose their own expansions
- get rid of bad systems. Especially the Empire powers are stuck with lots of horrible systems from the first turns, and would likely love to get rid of them. Same for most other powers. The powers cannot form the board they want to play with. They are stuck with the bad systems from the initial seed or the first turns.
5th columning is not the problem. The problem are lacking game mechanics. 5th columning is just the symptom.
Last edited:
I think it's pretty simple.
Add a VETO ability.
* Once you've been with a Power for 4 weeks (or 6 or 8 weeks) you gain the Veto Ability: You get an Up or Down vote on any Preparations or Expansions in your Power's List.
* You can vote on every Prep and Expansion, some or none.
* A prep or expansion with more Up than Down votes remains where it is in the List as a viable Prep or Expansion system and acts according to the current rules.
* A prep or expansion with more Down votes than Up votes is grayed out and, if still gray at the end of the cycle, will be removed from the list as if it was never there.
This gives two great advantages to a Power:
--> Because there is a time period of X weeks before you gain this ability, only your most dedicated Players get to vote up or down on Preps and Expansions.
This value should be high enough to make defecting to "5th Column" another power a very long term, and hence rather pointless Strategy.
--> The dedicated players in a Power will always have more numbers when it comes to Up or Down votes. Voting something Down is instant and effortless and involves no cost. This makes the entire 5th Column effort a complete waste of money, time and resources.
How would this have played out with Wolf 412 prepped by those droolers following "BadWolf"?
1) Let's say 4-6 people Defect to Mahon to fifth column Wolf 412.
2) They prep the crap out of Wolf spending time and money.
3) On the last day of the cycle, the various Alliance groups check their preps, see Wolf at the top of the list and spend 2 seconds to vote it Down, removing it from their list at the turn of the cycle.
4) The End.
Trying to subvert this outcome would only be possible by trying to get more people to Defect than the entire dedicated player base of the target power and leaving them there for 4-8 weeks to gain the veto ability... And will most likely just result in even more dedicated people in that power out-voting them. Same end result, this time with 4-8 weeks of effort wasted. I don't think this would be possible much less feasible.
This also solves the bugs that Delaine is experiencing with bad preps appearing on their list, and other powers as well.
Bad or bugged preps can be removed the same way, by voting in general agreement that they are bugged/bad.
Thoughts?
Add a VETO ability.
* Once you've been with a Power for 4 weeks (or 6 or 8 weeks) you gain the Veto Ability: You get an Up or Down vote on any Preparations or Expansions in your Power's List.
* You can vote on every Prep and Expansion, some or none.
* A prep or expansion with more Up than Down votes remains where it is in the List as a viable Prep or Expansion system and acts according to the current rules.
* A prep or expansion with more Down votes than Up votes is grayed out and, if still gray at the end of the cycle, will be removed from the list as if it was never there.
This gives two great advantages to a Power:
--> Because there is a time period of X weeks before you gain this ability, only your most dedicated Players get to vote up or down on Preps and Expansions.
This value should be high enough to make defecting to "5th Column" another power a very long term, and hence rather pointless Strategy.
--> The dedicated players in a Power will always have more numbers when it comes to Up or Down votes. Voting something Down is instant and effortless and involves no cost. This makes the entire 5th Column effort a complete waste of money, time and resources.
How would this have played out with Wolf 412 prepped by those droolers following "BadWolf"?
1) Let's say 4-6 people Defect to Mahon to fifth column Wolf 412.
2) They prep the crap out of Wolf spending time and money.
3) On the last day of the cycle, the various Alliance groups check their preps, see Wolf at the top of the list and spend 2 seconds to vote it Down, removing it from their list at the turn of the cycle.
4) The End.
Trying to subvert this outcome would only be possible by trying to get more people to Defect than the entire dedicated player base of the target power and leaving them there for 4-8 weeks to gain the veto ability... And will most likely just result in even more dedicated people in that power out-voting them. Same end result, this time with 4-8 weeks of effort wasted. I don't think this would be possible much less feasible.
This also solves the bugs that Delaine is experiencing with bad preps appearing on their list, and other powers as well.
Bad or bugged preps can be removed the same way, by voting in general agreement that they are bugged/bad.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
What about making anti-preparation merits available?
They could be available in exactly the same way as preparation merits - and count towards a players merit total, but they could be used to knock down un-favoured systems, rather than having to raise up favoured ones.
And whilst about it, why not allow anti-fortification merits to be available, for a bit of last minute fifth columning to reduce a fortified system below it's fortification trigger and leaving it open to undermining. Not suggesting that this is a good idea - just something to think about. Imagine the conflicts that could cause.
They could be available in exactly the same way as preparation merits - and count towards a players merit total, but they could be used to knock down un-favoured systems, rather than having to raise up favoured ones.
And whilst about it, why not allow anti-fortification merits to be available, for a bit of last minute fifth columning to reduce a fortified system below it's fortification trigger and leaving it open to undermining. Not suggesting that this is a good idea - just something to think about. Imagine the conflicts that could cause.
Last edited:
Well said Flin, I agree with your points wholeheartedly. All I can add to the discussion is an emotional point that was not discussed, and a small proposed 'damage control' to 5th columning work.
1-From an emotional point of view. Malicious 5th column work to prep bad systems is 'A Bad Thing', in capital letters, in that it makes the game environment more toxic, frustrates fair-playing players to no end. I would hope folks stop considering this 'a strategy that works' and consider how similar it is to causing infighting, to give you a better idea of what I mean I know a few EVE players that don't want ED to turn into a 'toxic pvp with mistrust and spying on top' kind of place like they felt EVE became. So yah, emotional point here: Having an effective strategy to undermine another power from within is Bad, big time. Makes the game less pleasant. From a design point of view it should not be considered 'interesting', it should be condemned and prevented utterly.
By comparison, Merit grinders overfortifying places I feel is 'not a big deal', this is a sandbox game and we should let people play the way they want to. So I'm rather in favor of informing the players but letting them have their merits. That little warning box stating a system is fully fortified sounds lovely. Bonus merits to players plying long routes sounds lovely too, use a carrot and not a stick wisdom. Benign actions aren't 5th columning even, I propose we focus more on stopping malicious 5th columnists.
2-Ways to stop/counter/damage-control actual malicious 5th column are needed: I read good solutions in this thread about using votes to counter bad expansions, but we also need a way to remove the 'damage done', aka bad systems that were prepped. It's not much, but I have this wee proposal:
During turmoil, remove systems with low profit instead of systems with high cost.
Malicious fifth columnists actively try for low to negative profit systems. If turmoil removes those, well, a power would lose more systems yes, but it would in a sweep remove several system of a 5th column's hard work. Wouldn't it? Sometimes a system with high cost still has an excellent profit and is a keeper, from a power's perspective.
Also, kudos to the OP for a constructive thread against a serious issue.
Last edited:
Great post pointing out the real issues! +rep
Hello Commanders!
I quite like the simplicity of the "increase merits for unfortified systems" concept, personally. Definitely worth chewing over.
Regarding 5th columnists: we are investigating ways of allowing powers to shed systems: the trick is to enforce enough safety measures to prevent the process itself being sabotaged!
In general, we like the idea of a power being able to change it's powerbase over time; we think it could create more opportunity for powers fighting over systems.
I quite like the simplicity of the "increase merits for unfortified systems" concept, personally. Definitely worth chewing over.
Regarding 5th columnists: we are investigating ways of allowing powers to shed systems: the trick is to enforce enough safety measures to prevent the process itself being sabotaged!
In general, we like the idea of a power being able to change it's powerbase over time; we think it could create more opportunity for powers fighting over systems.
So nice to see you are listening
Whilst it would be unwise to implement a quick half-baked decision, i'm sure the vast majority of the playerbase would welcome a swift update on the issue even if a final solution must wait for a more major update.
I'd rather we focused on changes that reward strategy more instead of providing a herding stick to the merit farmers.
It's been a few days already and the only changes you have replied to are the ones which will make Arissa (or any other power with her populace in the future in that regard) impossible to harm.
Why not make fortifying more active instead so that people don't have to spend 5 hours anchored in a station in order to provide a cargo load of fortification merits? The main problem behind fortifying is not the direction they are headed towards, it's how boring it is and thus no one wants to engage it as an occupation. It's literally a job to do it right now. It provides no fun, it requires those who do it to pretty much stop playing and wait in a station for quotas and most of the time it leads to the same people being forced to invest their own credits or have their power in turmoil, close to every week.
Please think through changes that provide direction. A power making mistakes is also a crucial part of the game.
Last edited:
Hello Commander Apos!
We do want to add more variety to the Powerplay activities. This is a long-term goal that requires significant resources and time.
However, that does not render simple changes that could have net positive results pointless, surely?
In fairness, you're absolutely correct: we do have to be careful when making changes that offer incentives, which is why we'd need to chew over the ramifications before putting anything in motion.
I would maybe argue at the moment though, that within fortification and preparation there already is the capacity to make mistakes - possibly I could argue that fortification currently incentivises "mistakes" by making systems very close to the home world equally profitable.
All discussion is good discussion though!
We do want to add more variety to the Powerplay activities. This is a long-term goal that requires significant resources and time.
However, that does not render simple changes that could have net positive results pointless, surely?
In fairness, you're absolutely correct: we do have to be careful when making changes that offer incentives, which is why we'd need to chew over the ramifications before putting anything in motion.
I would maybe argue at the moment though, that within fortification and preparation there already is the capacity to make mistakes - possibly I could argue that fortification currently incentivises "mistakes" by making systems very close to the home world equally profitable.
All discussion is good discussion though!
Depends on the result. Getting more people to fortify without understanding its importance doesn't qualify as a net positive to me, but as a band aid which coerces them to do so. And more efficiently on top of that, without any understanding on their part.
Please expand on this.
Last edited:
EDIT: So as it turns out, someone suggested this on the second page over here, so the below is basically a reciprocation of what was said.
If I may say, since the last time we discussed back on the Merit-cap front, I believe there may be some simpler (ish?) alternatives to stabilizing a faction's prepared control systems, while also giving some additional inherent value to Rating 4.
After maintaining Rating 4, or being apart of a faction for at least X Weeks, faction members gain the ability to cast a 'VETO' vote, in favor or against, the Preparing of a system. Majority, by definition, will always have enough strength in numbers to outweigh a minority; if each player's Veto power was equal to one-another's, even the biggest group of 5th-columnists would find a brick wall preventing their success.
When a system is put to VETO, players can vote to sustain the veto, or vote to keep the system open to Preparation. Either through a % or a hard number of CMDR's for-or-against will decide whether the system is worth putting on the Expansion list in the following cycle.
From the way I could see it, FDev could handle that one of two ways:
1) Once the threshold for Veto'ing the system is reached, Preparation packets are no longer allowed to be dropped off in the control system. This goes away if the threshold is not sustained.
or
2) Once the threshold for Veto'ing the system is reached, the system will be considered as if it had 0 Preparations on the cycle tick.
Surely adding a system like the above would be the best way for PowerPlay communities to coordinate against 5th Columnists and make the practice pointless.
Last edited:
Someone else has already mentioned in another thread that destroying other power's ships in your control systems should add to fortification.
I don't agree with combat being the way to go for everything.
Have painite, platinum and osmium count as fortification commodities is one example of getting another profession in the game. Give miners the ability to donate them in control system for only 1.000/piece like a normal merit and fortify the systems this way as well.
It also brings much more ships into the game instead of anacondas for hoarding preparations/expansions/fortification commodities and the fighter capable ships for combat expansion/undermining.
Or like I have already proposed, link the merit quotas with missions. This way all play styles can participate with fortification by doing what missions they prefer, assassination, smuggling, w.e.
Last edited:
I'd like to see rewards for long-term service, or loyalty (similar to the veto mentioned above). As 5th columnists are generally flitting from their chosen power, to another power to 5th column, it's likely this can be used quite effectively to stamp it out.
So how about giving everyone pledged to a power a vote to choose which system to expand into next cycle. Then make preparation a trigger rather than a race (but keep it as a race against powers competing for the same system). Then any system hitting its trigger can be voted for by the player base.
For each week a player has been rank 1 they get 1 vote, rank 2 they get 2 votes, etc. That way it gives CMDRs a say in how their power moves forward, more ownership in its dealings, and a sense of belonging. The harder you work, the more votes you get; the longer you do that work for, the more those votes grow. The actual numbers might need to be tweaked or scaled as the weeks go by, but this would reward loyal CMDRs instead of allowing newbies to screw them over.
Edit:
So to clarify, your history with a power might be:
week 1 rank 1, 1 vote
week 2 rank 2, 2 votes + 1 from previous weeks
week 3 rank 4, 4 votes + 3 from previous weeks
week 4 rank 5, 5 votes + 7 from previous weeks
So how about giving everyone pledged to a power a vote to choose which system to expand into next cycle. Then make preparation a trigger rather than a race (but keep it as a race against powers competing for the same system). Then any system hitting its trigger can be voted for by the player base.
For each week a player has been rank 1 they get 1 vote, rank 2 they get 2 votes, etc. That way it gives CMDRs a say in how their power moves forward, more ownership in its dealings, and a sense of belonging. The harder you work, the more votes you get; the longer you do that work for, the more those votes grow. The actual numbers might need to be tweaked or scaled as the weeks go by, but this would reward loyal CMDRs instead of allowing newbies to screw them over.
Edit:
So to clarify, your history with a power might be:
week 1 rank 1, 1 vote
week 2 rank 2, 2 votes + 1 from previous weeks
week 3 rank 4, 4 votes + 3 from previous weeks
week 4 rank 5, 5 votes + 7 from previous weeks
Last edited:
why not using the currently underused voting system for that?
- each cycle there could be votes to shed systems, or even votes that can change the result of those negative expansions.
- every player can use his voting power to vote "yes" or "no".
- instead of having a fixed amout of points to spend like it is now, the voting power should be determined through the pledging time and the rating of that commander.
- each cycle and each rank in rating would increase the voting power up to a certain amount, while inactivity from pp would reduce it again (not doing anything during a cycle).
- maximum could be for example 10 (so that one player cant get infinite votepower) and minimum obviously 1.
- you wouldnt be force to decide on what you vote with your limited points, instead every active player can vote for every single vote in his power, while only his activity determines the weight of his vote.
- with that, the most active players could change the outcome of a cycle so that those 5th column players have a harder time sabotaging them
Last edited:
How about utilising a scaling factor which is dependant on how long a player has been pledged to that faction.
For example, if a player is < 2 weeks pledged, their actions are 0.8*merits.
If a player is > 8 weeks, its 1.2* merits.
You could play about with the thresholds and scaling factors in such a way that long term loyalty and dedication is rewarded. 5th columnists who are dedicated to undermining a faction would strike me as somewhat rare - but those who remain that long, and work against a power for so long should not be ignored.
Right now, being a long-term loyalist means nothing but if you use this as an indicator to increase the effectiveness of those users it will help counteract any short-term switching sabotage.
Such loyalty should be rewarded in other ways too though, even if its restricted to vanity items such as a power decal
- Status