Powerplay Every Powerplay related proposal until now.

[Rubbernuke]

Well it doesn't as you'd have to station commanders 24/7 across 3 platforms

The proposal makes everyone fortify the same way- inbound. To mess up fortifying you only need to visit the capital. Most switched on powers know which systems are fortified as well as when.

and it doesn't solve the 5C and bot problem which have largely been responsible for the collapse of every Power at one point.

Open on its own indeed is only a mild anti 5C measure- it only works if you can actually get to see your suspect 5C commander. However, it does work. A number of times 5C activity has happened and having flown out had chats with the people doing it, only to find lost players to bring into the fold.

The most potent anti 5C measures are weighting, which will make weaponised expansions much harder to do.

The bots & 5C also probably have access to the functionality of the trainer that allows instant travel between systems so good luck shooting them down even in Open.

Thats on FD to sort out, not stop features because of cheats.

As long as turmoil is done by economics you'll never solve anything.

Open benefits everything- if powers wind up shrinking it means more turmoils, more systems up for grabs and more squabbles. You will get situations like several powers racing for prep in the same system, with players kicking the other players to slow them down- which is the point. Open only acts as a modifer to current patterns. If you can slow, deter or stop another power directly its giving you more tools to fight with, not less.

 

[CMDR Quade]

Looks to see if PP made the list for the January update "almost exclusively focused on addressing recent and longstanding issues and bugs." sighs and closes browser

 

[Rubbernuke]

Looks to see if PP made the list for the January update "almost exclusively focused on addressing recent and longstanding issues and bugs." sighs and closes browser

A good start would to re-enable mouse support for Powerplay UIs. Powerplayers are hardcore, but making it keyboard only is taking that a bit too far.

 

[Nix Cipher]

I have a proposal for something that's been bugging me for a while now. Often times when I Fortify control systems I find that many of the control systems in the top of the list is WAY past 100% . Which I find counterproductive and extremely irritating. For example, the first system in the list I'm looking at right now has been Foritifed at 2,562%. What the actual ****! My proposal is that there be a hard cap at 100% for both Fortify and Undermining. So for example once 100% Fortify has been reached, none of the stations in that system will allow you turn in any propaganda materials (I think that's what you call it) and tell you to take that stuff to a system that hasn't reached 100%.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

I have a proposal for something that's been bugging me for a while now. Often times when I Fortify control systems I find that many of the control systems in the top of the list is WAY past 100% . Which I find counterproductive and extremely irritating. For example, the first system in the list I'm looking at right now has been Foritifed at 2,562%. What the actual ****! My proposal is that there be a hard cap at 100% for both Fortify and Undermining. So for example once 100% Fortify has been reached, none of the stations in that system will allow you turn in any propaganda materials (I think that's what you call it) and tell you to take that stuff to a system that hasn't reached 100%.

I will answer you by quoting myself from another thread.

Preparation: this activity should not give any merit to the single player. Yeah, I know this is a little bit extreme, but it's the only way I see to not exploit any CG-like reward Structure based on merits.
Fortification: any merit delivered over the 100% tier should not be assigned to the Player, as for Preparations, to avoid any merits grinding exploit using the closest systems.
Undermining: same as for Fortification: you go over the 100%, those merits are not assigned.

The "no merits for Preparation" is to counter 5C.

 

[Bashy81]

No merits over 100% is a really good move. Its an easy win for encouraging pledges to either work together or think strategically for the power on some level.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No merits over 100% is a really good move. Its an easy win for encouraging pledges to either work together or think strategically for the power on some level.

Its simple and direct- it might be too that you couple it with some sort of weighting to high value systems (or most disant) that allow 150% (to attract people) while close in trash is 100%. I know its encouraging waste, but with everything 'flat' you might just see people still fortifying the closest first once the innermost is done.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

Having the ability to over fortify systems so commanders can get merits without potentially doing something you don't want them to is extremely useful. Every Power has a plan, if the over fortification was an actual problem of significance they would say so.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Having the ability to over fortify systems so commanders can get merits without potentially doing something you don't want them to is extremely useful. Every Power has a plan, if the over fortification was an actual problem of significance they would say so.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

In fact, if you remember well my original proposal considered competitive triggers for controled systems too.

 

[Bashy81]

Having the ability to over fortify systems so commanders can get merits without potentially doing something you don't want them to is extremely useful. Every Power has a plan, if the over fortification was an actual problem of significance they would say so.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

In isolation I agree with you, but in looking at changes on a similar scale to Sandro's (imo brilliant) proposals, wasted efforts do no good for player retention. Nor does personal and group goals being so divergent. (Module shopping is a terrible way to introduce most players to PP)
Designing-out intentionally wasted effort should be a priority in any significant PP revision IMO. Other priorities ofc would be (in no particular order)

1) putting 5c in its rightful place (intelligence gathering & a one-shot deal in broader use : once discovered it loses its effect)

2) balancing attack and defence so exploits like off-beaconing can be removed.

3) negating console multi-cmdr votespam

4) making shedding systems not involve inducing a systemic failure to achieve. ( Making shedding more reliable would make diplomacy with powers and pmfs far better)

5) Restricting ethos checks to control systems only, would relieve a lot of the tension given the ongoing inserted-PMF epidemic.

6) Change haulage & CZ mechanics to make botting & AFK gameplay impractical.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The beauty of '100% and done' is that it guides those pledges who are not with a Discord / Reddit in a gentle way and one that does not require some complicated rule- as long as there was an indicator 'Fully fortified' or something.

What will happen is players will fill up the closest system, and then the next, and so on. There are some powers whose innermost control system is like 1000% fortified. Under this rule players would then fortify 10 close systems and not 1, which although can cause issues (with high end Powerplay strategy) it would be benign for 99% of cycles.

 

[CMDR_Brantford of FLC]

Does any of the PP changes coming in January address any of our proposals?

 

[Justinian Octavius]

The beauty of '100% and done' is that it guides those pledges who are not with a Discord / Reddit in a gentle way and one that does not require some complicated rule- as long as there was an indicator 'Fully fortified' or something.

What will happen is players will fill up the closest system, and then the next, and so on. There are some powers whose innermost control system is like 1000% fortified. Under this rule players would then fortify 10 close systems and not 1, which although can cause issues (with high end Powerplay strategy) it would be benign for 99% of cycles.

It could be a problem for some Powers as they'd never lose any of their loss making 5C systems. Also I would suspect the 100% cap is technically difficult to implement due to the lag which can run at 15 minutes between client & galaxy servers for Powerplay. For Powers that haul Control System to Headquarters you'll likely end up with Power Commodities having to be dumped.

It's an interesting suggestion but not one I would like seeing implemented.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Justinian Octavius]

Does any of the PP changes coming in January address any of our proposals?

The purpose of the January update is to focus on fixes to current bugs so for Powerplay it deals with such issues as CC Income being incorrect and Trigger Reduction not being applied due to non-exploited systems being counted. Fixing these will be a great help in providing a game mode that produces the expected result from a Power's activities.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Rubbernuke]

It could be a problem for some Powers as they'd never lose any of their loss making 5C systems. Also I would suspect the 100% cap is technically difficult to implement due to the lag which can run at 15 minutes between client & galaxy servers for Powerplay. For Powers that haul Control System to Headquarters you'll likely end up with Power Commodities having to be dumped.

It's an interesting suggestion but not one I would like seeing implemented.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

The potential lag would be annoying- one way around is that past 100% merits still count but tail off exponentially- so perhaps 0-100% forts merits are worth 100%, and for each 1% increase in fort total the value diminishes.

As for 5C systems, the most devastating are those closest to capital, and no matter what you did they'd never be shifted via turmoil so the idea here would not make that worse. Plus, don't forget Sandros idea for voting to drop systems, which would make controlled turmoils less needed.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

An easy way to make 5C systems more "losable" would be to give the closest control systems priority on overlapping exploited systems.

This is of course an emergency solution without changing Powerplay as it is right now. FDev is apparently working on how the incomes are calculated, maybe they can push this before the beta ends?

 

[Justinian Octavius]

I suspect many would still make a loss because of the overhead. The best solution is to replace the current CC deficit mechanic of Turmoil and then have no loss making spheres imho.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Bard Voronwe]

I suspect many would still make a loss because of the overhead. The best solution is to replace the current CC deficit mechanic of Turmoil and then have no loss making spheres imho.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

Yeah many of them certainly would, but to have closer systems have priority would make newest closest systems higher in income and easier to scrap (even if maybe still impossible, it depends on the Power).

And it would make sense too: less merits to secure closerexploited systems.

 

[Deareim]

Just making systems more easier to loose would bring some dynamic...

 

[cmdr Ramius007]

Or other way around, making expasnions easier, decreasing radious of exploit zones would be interesting too, Truth is that without at least merit bonuses to open play, we dont see any changes, PVE difficulty is 0, especially when it comes to undermining and power play haulers npc interdictions, so without this, any changes just adjust grind war, with side that have more players always being on top. Cross platform in Odyssey maybe.....