Elite Dangerous | Powerplay 2.0 Questions and Answers
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
Well, for theft too then
I'm finding prismatic to be indispensable for maximising cargo space, sizing them down. They charge very quickly when running on system focused power distributors, and on any build in which you would use an A rated shield, you can drop down a size using prismatic's for the same weight and gain extra module capacity.
For all of the powers, their focus on logistics, this is a massive advantage; If only one power had prismatics then they would likely dominate the space very quickly ... Unless some other power had access to a vessel that was specked such that it managed to stop all deliveries from getting though. But if all else were equal, the shields would give them the upper hand by far.
The cytoscrambler is high up there on my list of modules that I really want to integrate into my engineering tool box. I'd be going for whichever power has those next, having just dumped the blue haired princess having purchased a stock of prismatics.
Now I've no idea what I'll have to jump though as hoops just to keep up with what is required to engineer my next build, you can make do with out, but you can't compete in PvP.
I couldn't care less about politics and power, unless that power is in joules and engineering is involved.
C4 ENFORCER CANNON, THE GOD OF DAKKA IS COMING!!!
Huge cytos, hammers or APAs would be very tasty (and toasty).
A huge Retributor might actually cook that lasagna too....
Make II Cytos and you have a turreted laser for free*
*direction of fire not guaranteed. Terms and conditions apply
Oh that's a good point, they are far less interesting when you realise that they are limited to specific sizes; I was thinking that cytoscrablers could be got at c2 ...
Oh well, do carry on with all your power play antics then, I've got my shields now; It doesn't look like much else is really all that special.
... Just a couple of cytoscrablers for my eagles.
Never bothered doing PP for any other faction for modules, except the pack hounds, those things are hilarious!
O7
Some modules, in the further design of the game received a change in their basic properties. But this is not considered a bug for some reason.
Example: Miner's Spear, it was stated that this laser helps to destroy enemies. But later in the game there was a function of division into two modes, combat and research. As a result, you cannot group the spear together with combat weapons.
I picked up this interesting post on a Reddit thread on PP 2.0. It's beginning to look like there will be a tug-of-war between the centralized management style common in PP 1.0 and what looks like a more free-wheeling style of play in PP 2.0. Very interesting thread to follow overall.
"Power Play 2.0 will see the elimination of the current Consolidation Vote mechanic. The consequence is a Galactic Power NPC's sphere of influence will no longer be decided by a cabal of self-appointed gatekeepers who are empowered - through the Consolidation Vote - to invalidate the system preparation efforts of other Commanders aligned to the same Galactic Power NPC.
Under PP 2.0 individual ambition, initiative, and effort will be rewarded and affect a GP's sphere of influence, regardless of what the tyranny of the majority thinks. "
source: Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/1fu26g0/comment/lpwvln8/
main thread :
What's with all the hate around Ascendency and Powerplay 2.0?
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/1fu26g0/whats_with_all_the_hate_around_ascendency_and/?sort=old
"Power Play 2.0 will see the elimination of the current Consolidation Vote mechanic. The consequence is a Galactic Power NPC's sphere of influence will no longer be decided by a cabal of self-appointed gatekeepers who are empowered - through the Consolidation Vote - to invalidate the system preparation efforts of other Commanders aligned to the same Galactic Power NPC.
Under PP 2.0 individual ambition, initiative, and effort will be rewarded and affect a GP's sphere of influence, regardless of what the tyranny of the majority thinks. "
source: Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/1fu26g0/comment/lpwvln8/
main thread :
What's with all the hate around Ascendency and Powerplay 2.0?
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/1fu26g0/whats_with_all_the_hate_around_ascendency_and/?sort=old
What Chuckles does not get on Reddit is that in V1 one bad expansion permanently (as in, forever) hobbles the power and it was only large groups that prevented it each and every week. V1 was supposed to be 'benign majority rule' where it was assumed players would always pick the best move.
To illustrate, nearly all powers have systems right next to capitals that had incredibly bad values that would eat lots of CC. Once expanded, they'd be impossible to drop and left unchecked would go on and on until turmoil.
V2 will allow 'individual ambition, initiative, and effort' but in the end it will still require people to be guided to places to focus effort. The difference is rival expansions won't screw up others.
The centralised management style was never intentional by Frontier, they just messed up the balancing so badly that it became essential to any power wishing to survive. I'm sure there are some people who'll miss that but I don't expect many.
My suspicion was that the original intent was that the main constraint on the size of a Power would be other people attacking it and preventing its expansions. What actually happened was the first exhibit of players' collective extreme loss-aversion, so everyone focused on their own growth first; the bubble was too large for just ten powers to end up having to fight early to expand; the first thing that put an actual constraint on expansion was the then uncapped overheads limit, presumably originally intended as a brake on a larger power rather than something expected to be hit.
That it ended up being much easier to harm the power you signed up to than to attack anyone else was the key flaw of the whole system. (The people who did it deliberately certainly weren't popular, but accidentally was bad enough) It's the elimination of that in PP2 that means centralised control is no longer required.
This is why I hope V2 makes attack easier to destabilize entrenched powers. Your shield in V1 was maths, and that the connection between losing a system and how to do it was very abstracted. V2 thankfully makes understanding whats going on easy- systems drop directly based on effort.
The only question is (one I asked but not got an answer for) was how long does it take to shift the UM bar one way or the other. I get this is down to player numbers + effort but if making everything a stronghold is too easy you'll wind up with multiple overlapping influence bubbles that will be hard to shift and will lead to 'attack is too hard' and no-one will do it.
The irony of V1 is that the concept of collapse was the correct driver for players. It forced situations onto powers that should have resulted in constant efforts to turmoil others and steal systems. V2....is very 'steady state' and I do wonder if it has enough impetus for powers to want to expand and thus drive the game. V1 became steady state when collpase was revealed to be a porkie and everyone was 'safe'.
Is there a possibility of "subtle" 5th Column action where a pledged player can work against the interests of the pledgee by pushing expansions that ultimately weaken the power's position?
Not really. CC does not exist in V2, meaning all expansions are 'good' and that everything is based on effort to expand.
Any 5C would have to be at a BGS level tanking controlling faction influence during phases that require positive BGS work- but even then thats self limiting (for example failing missions drops local rep to the point you are expelled).
That's true but then we have leaderships and leaderships.
I have been the Leader of Kumo for years before resigning for @Rebel Yell , and I can say that I am thrilled about the decentralisation in Powerplay 2.0.
In Powerplay 1.0 leaderships are necessary because of the Overhead game mechanics which are very complicated and very punitive, and most people simply don't care and/or do not understand them.
People reading the forums will know for how long I claimed this to be one of the many issues that prevented Powerplay to become a successful game mechanic (with merits decay and many other).
Talking about our group we're already reorganising to become the biggest source of informations for Archon Delaine pledges to how and where be as effective they can to improve our Power together. This is a totally different perspective considering the past, but I think what we all want is for Powerplay to be SUCCESSFUL and decentralisation is one of the keys for Powerplay 2 success.
Yes, some people will become far less important than they used to be. Personally, I am more than happy about it if Powerplay 2 really will be successful.
And this is told by a player devoted to a Power that will not attract as many players as others. We will fight, we will get what we can, probably it will be less than what we have today but actually I do not care, the only thought of being finally able to fight for THAT system (or group of systems) against THAT enemy with straightforward results it's wonderful, period.
Weren't we specifically told that some expansions could be a bridge too far? I seem to remember something about too much expansion weakening the power globally by providing a larger attack surface?
I think that what they mean is that some expansions will be really hard to achieve.
But I expect for a "bad" expansion to not destroy a Power economy as a whole as it happens now.
That at least is something which - unlike PP1 - should be easier to adjust after the initial release.
And at that level, you wouldn't need to be aligned to the Power anyway, so that's just an attack rather than 5C.
There's two separate concepts there, and one implicit assumption which is still to an extent in PP1 thinking.
1) Expansions will apparently need to be chained outwards from the HQ, so an overenthusiastic expansion could be cut off by chopping the chain in the middle. So it'd certainly be possible for a player (group) to make an expansion they can't sustain in that way - but the difference between that and PP1 5C is that the power doesn't end up worse off afterwards than if they'd not tried at all.
2) If a Power chooses to try to maintain all its current systems (the implicit assumption), then obviously the bigger the power gets the more of those systems can come under attack at once [1] and the more simultaneous effort is required to maintain them. But if some group makes an expansion the power doesn't actually want, for whatever reason, they aren't obliged to maintain those systems: they can just focus on the ones they already had and actually wanted to keep, and again the power isn't worse off than if they hadn't overstretched to start with.
Think about the Thargoid War, by analogy.
- if you pick a random Control system at Cocijo and attack it, you'll probably fail (unless you're very good at this!) and the effort will be wasted
- if you'd instead coordinated your attack with other people (at a different system) you would have contributed to that attack succeeding.
- but in the first case, the human fight against the Thargoids still isn't worse off compared with you doing nothing
So you can be ineffective quite easily, but that only means you don't achieve your own goals. You're not stopping other people on your side achieving their goals at the same time.
[1] One of the big - and probably only answerable in practice than Frontier's theory! - questions is how much background "undermining pressure" the normal actions of people pledged to opposing powers but just doing their own thing in your space will supply. That fits in well with Rubbernuke's balance of attack vs defence question as well.
I don't think this will be the case: considering the current situation there's plenty of bubbles unconnected already, I think that if a "chain" is chopped off at some point the territory will smimply stay as an exclave of that Power.
This works in a "pure" PvE scenario like the one from Thargoid Wars, Powerplay will be player-driven (as BGS for example) so even a single CMDR will make an impact if he's not countered by another player. But then we will have the new UI that FDev said that will somehow "guide" players where they are needed the most. We'll see about that.