Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Make PowerPlay Open-Only

[DemiserofD]

I'd be happy if interdictions were changed to be balanced rather than favouring the interdictor. That's the biggest problem with it. Of course, including bias depending on your ship's SC manouverability.

That would encourage traders to consider whether its better to make a big haul or a smaller haul in a more agile ship. As i understand it, especially with engineering, a player attacker will win all the time even if you keep on target 100% when flying a more agile ship as long as the interdictor is decent at the game.

If both are on target 100% nobody should be gaining, it should be stalemate. If one loses it, then the other gains.

I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept for FD, and i can only presume that if they did it this way, then NPCs would never be able to interdict anyone, and therefore, since PvE is the vast majority of the game, they feel its better to take the hit on the PvP side instead of the PvE side.

Pragmatically, the attacker should always be at a disadvantage. They can always try to interdict again, and face very little risk for trying. By contrast, the person being interdicted faces great danger every time they're interdicted.

Ideally, the person being interdicted should escape more than half the time, especially from players, even if using a trade ship.

 

[CMDR Foursyth]

I'd be happy if interdictions were changed to be balanced rather than favouring the interdictor.

They're... not. Currently if a moderately-engineered hauler is interdicted by a moderately-engineered interceptor, and both pilots know what they're doing, the hauler will escape around 75% of the time. That's still a modest win for the interceptor, since they're slowing the hauling progress, but it's far more even than you think. And if the hauler is smart and it's the right system, they can still make it to their target successfully. It's a far more evenly-matched fight than you think. Come join a PowerPlay group on Discord and learn all this stuff for real - it's fun!

 

[Kaocraft]

They're... not. Currently if a moderately-engineered hauler is interdicted by a moderately-engineered interceptor, and both pilots know what they're doing, the hauler will escape around 75% of the time. That's still a modest win for the interceptor, since they're slowing the hauling progress, but it's far more even than you think. And if the hauler is smart and it's the right system, they can still make it to their target successfully. It's a far more evenly-matched fight than you think. Come join a PowerPlay group on Discord and learn all this stuff for real - it's fun!

Range and angle of the initial tether notwithstanding, how does engineering factor into interdiction at all? What engineering mods could you put on a ship which would add to OR detract from your ability to win either side of an interdiction?

In my experience anytime I've been interdicted by another player it's over almost before it begins. Like the bar fills up in their favor nearly instantly no matter what I do. But I've not had such an encounter in a while so things may have changed. To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely nothing about your ship configuration that has any impact on this outcome.

 

[DemiserofD]

Range and angle of the initial tether notwithstanding, how does engineering factor into interdiction at all? What engineering mods could you put on a ship which would add to OR detract from your ability to win either side of an interdiction?

In my experience anytime I've been interdicted by another player it's over almost before it begins. Like the bar fills up in their favor nearly instantly no matter what I do. But I've not had such an encounter in a while so things may have changed. To the best of my knowledge there is absolutely nothing about your ship configuration that has any impact on this outcome.

This is correct, he's talking out his nethers.

 

[CMDR Foursyth]

This is correct, he's talking out his nethers.

I've been hauling director for Winters for four years now. I may have been interdicted a few times.

I am talking about the entire process of interdiction, not just the mini-game. The smart thing is to NOT play the mini-game. Zero-throttle and submit immediately, which gives you a smaller cooldown on your FSD. That way you will escape much more easily. You'd know this if you played PP.

 

[DemiserofD]

I've been hauling director for Winters for four years now. I may have been interdicted a few times.

I am talking about the entire process of interdiction, not just the mini-game. The smart thing is to NOT play the mini-game. Zero-throttle and submit immediately, which gives you a smaller cooldown on your FSD. That way you will escape much more easily. You'd know this if you played PP.

What you said was an outright lie, then. If you had meant 'the entire interdiction process', you should have said 'the entire interdiction process'. We are talking about specifically the interdiction. Which is why we said Interdiction, not the whole interdiction process.

With exactly as much truth, I could say "A trade ship has about a 50% chance of beating a pvp ship in combat!" Of course, what I MEAN is "After the trade ship goes to a station and switches to their pvp ship to fight in", but of course I don't need to mention that, that's part of the pvp process, doyy!

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, and those things would have been impossible if the top 10 had chosen where you could expand into.

Because it wouldn't be just 'pour loads of resources into bad systems', anymore.

It would be, "Support good systems for four weeks, actively helping the power. Outcompete seven of the top ten players in the power. THEN, KEEP that level of activity maintained perpetually, to make sure NONE of your seven dummy characters drops off the list and you lose 100% of your power."

You're talking about a massive multi-month effort to achieve what you can more practically achieve just by attacking them directly/undermining them. If you fail, you've only helped the enemy power! You're talking about basically playing a new character full time, just to keep from having to play your other character against them!

Would 5c still technically be possible? Yes.

Would it be practical? In almost every circumstance, no.

Although at this point I'd be willing to try anything, you do know the lengths 5C go right? Over the last couple of years 5C have shown they'll go to crazy lengths to win. That example I illustrated was over three weeks, and repeated itself. The Alliance went through months of 5C, for some Powers it never really stops.

You're talking about a massive multi-month effort to achieve what you can more practically achieve just by attacking them directly/undermining them.

This is what they do, because the most devastating moves in Powerplay are still from the inside. One of the fundamental flaws of Powerplay is that people can choose to make poor moves, when in reality they (low CC expansions) need to be locked out- which negates weaponized expansions however (which is the 'good' sacrifical CC move under a powers control most of the time).

Now, if you combined your idea with weighting, then you'd lock out the crazies much, much more- people can vote but only vote for sensible places.

 

[CMDR Foursyth]

What you said was an outright lie, then.

You got me. You clearly know PowerPlay much better than I do. Well done you win the thread. I look forward to you spreading your wisdom in other threads that are not this one, which is about OOPP and not interdiction.

 

[DemiserofD]

You got me. You clearly know PowerPlay much better than I do. Well done you win the thread. I look forward to you spreading your wisdom in other threads that are not this one, which is about OOPP and not interdiction.

If you stop making nonsense up, you'd be wrong less often. Just a thought.

Although at this point I'd be willing to try anything, you do know the lengths 5C go right? Over the last couple of years 5C have shown they'll go to crazy lengths to win. That example I illustrated was over three weeks, and repeated itself. The Alliance went through months of 5C, for some Powers it never really stops.



This is what they do, because the most devastating moves in Powerplay are still from the inside. One of the fundamental flaws of Powerplay is that people can choose to make poor moves, when in reality they (low CC expansions) need to be locked out- which negates weaponized expansions however (which is the 'good' sacrifical CC move under a powers control most of the time).

Now, if you combined your idea with weighting, then you'd lock out the crazies much, much more- people can vote but only vote for sensible places.

Well, the nice thing about my idea is that it actually makes it harder to undermine from within than from outside.

Because if you want to just want to counter them externally, you only need to beat them in terms of raw effort. They fortify, you undermine, it's a straight race. If you do even 1% more than them, you win the fight.

But because working from the inside means beating both the loyal players AND the power itself(which always makes a safe choice), you need to outcompete them by more like 50%, and then undo the damage you yourself caused, fighting to get into the position of power to do harm in the first place. This makes it more practical to simply fight them outright than to attempt sabotage.

In my opinion, the biggest reason 5c is an issue in the first place isn't because it's possible at all, but because it's actually easier to do harm to a power from inside than from outside. All you really need to do to fix the fundamental problem is make it more efficient to attack them directly than to subvert them from within, at which point 5c attempts ultimately become self-defeating, a less efficient use of time than just doing things the normal way.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Well, the nice thing about my idea is that it actually makes it harder to undermine from within than from outside.

Because if you want to just want to counter them externally, you only need to beat them in terms of raw effort. They fortify, you undermine, it's a straight race. If you do even 1% more than them, you win the fight.

But because working from the inside means beating both the loyal players AND the power itself(which always makes a safe choice), you need to outcompete them by more like 50%, and then undo the damage you yourself caused, fighting to get into the position of power to do harm in the first place. This makes it more practical to simply fight them outright than to attempt sabotage.

In my opinion, the biggest reason 5c is an issue in the first place isn't because it's possible at all, but because it's actually easier to do harm to a power from inside than from outside. All you really need to do to fix the fundamental problem is make it more efficient to attack them directly than to subvert them from within, at which point 5c attempts ultimately become self-defeating, a less efficient use of time than just doing things the normal way.

Since there is an intrinsic link between system value and CC, it will always be targetted- but I'm willing to try systems because in the end thats how you see if they work- consolidation was great but had unintended effects, for example. You'd have to also make prep materials free otherwise only deep pocketed players could make choices- and 5C have very deep pockets (while I have about 100 million in the bank).

Personally I'd want the whole CC concept wiped and that a system has no value other than its one more (which is totally 5C proof), but we would have to see what FD think (if anything). What any idea has to stop is blind grind races for what should be a simple choice- I have nasty memories of having 5C prep the top positions, meaning loyals would have to outprep them nearly 3 times over to push them out.

My only other comment would be is that your idea actually suits an Open Powerplay because you are travelling more (meaning more chance of interception). I think I would die inside if I had to race to simply vote like a CG but with no opposition (or anything opposing).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Pragmatically, the attacker should always be at a disadvantage. They can always try to interdict again, and face very little risk for trying. By contrast, the person being interdicted faces great danger every time they're interdicted.

Ideally, the person being interdicted should escape more than half the time, especially from players, even if using a trade ship.

Well, that's an interesting alternate opinion, and i can see your point, but i feel that for best results it should be a game of pure skill with no bias (excepting the choice of ship).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

They're... not. Currently if a moderately-engineered hauler is interdicted by a moderately-engineered interceptor, and both pilots know what they're doing, the hauler will escape around 75% of the time. That's still a modest win for the interceptor, since they're slowing the hauling progress, but it's far more even than you think. And if the hauler is smart and it's the right system, they can still make it to their target successfully. It's a far more evenly-matched fight than you think. Come join a PowerPlay group on Discord and learn all this stuff for real - it's fun!

That doesn't match with just about every description i've heard of interdiction, including from PvPers as well. Unless you literally mean Hauler (capital H) because that is a small ship with excellent SC manouverability vs a much bigger ship.

As for joining a Powerplay group. No thanks. Been there, done that. Powerplay is a steaming pile of garbage that needs a serious rework, and all these proposals are doing is trying to make that steaming pile a little bit less of a steaming pile. Unless FD say they are willing to completely redo it, all these threads are is a large amount of blah blah. Its not fun for me, i've little interest in PvP (been there, done that, got the t-shirt) and the PvE aspect of powerplay is absoloute trash of the highest order.

As much as i love ED, powerplay can suck my giant donkey eggs unless there is a complete rework that makes it interesting for me.

 

[cmdr Ramius007]

If I remember correctly, you lose merits and even get un-pledged if you keep shooting down ships from your own power, right? Getting them into open would accomplish nothing because you're not going to be able to fight your own 5C.

You are losing 15 mrits per kill of own fcaction ship, just tell me how many cutters/t9 you have to kill so they stop and how costyl it be for commanders involved in this, you guys are like bunch of scouts on firing range, TBH it would be better for game if your faction get totally screwed by all those mechanics, mechanics we can remove by simple 1 change, i dont see partners to discusison, becosue you are simply not biggest victims of 5c, and i m not sure if anything but becoming victims of this can change your mind, as player base, not individually.

 

[DemiserofD]

You are losing 15 mrits per kill of own fcaction ship, just tell me how many cutters/t9 you have to kill so they stop and how costyl it be for commanders involved in this, you guys are like bunch of scouts on firing range, TBH it would be better for game if your faction get totally screwed by all those mechanics, mechanics we can remove by simple 1 change, i dont see partners to discusison, becosue you are simply not biggest victims of 5c, and i m not sure if anything but becoming victims of this can change your mind, as player base, not individually.

I absolutely agree that 5c should be mitigated, I just disagree that this is the way to fix it.

 

[Bashy81]

What you said was an outright lie, then. If you had meant 'the entire interdiction process', you should have said 'the entire interdiction process'. We are talking about specifically the interdiction. Which is why we said Interdiction, not the whole interdiction process.

You got me. You clearly know PowerPlay much better than I do. Well done you win the thread. I look forward to you spreading your wisdom in other threads that are not this one, which is about OOPP and not interdiction.

If you stop making nonsense up, you'd be wrong less often. Just a thought

what is the point of talking about rebalancing interdiction without considering the end result, which in a Powerplay context is ofc whether a hauler makes it to its destination, or survives.
Just talking about the interdiction minigame is extremely myopic. Calling someone a liar because they are viewing the big picture in context you overlook... seems very childish.

Using a the vagaries of your own alternative proposal that youve failed to properly detail because it needs its own thread to properly analyse is simply making a stick to beat the OP & derail the thread when challenged.

A solo/PGer, trolling and derailing an Open-Only thread you say? And the ban-happy moderators are nowhere to be seen, you say? How Very Strange, I say

 

[Rubbernuke]

what is the point of talking about rebalancing interdiction without considering the end result, which in a Powerplay context is ofc whether a hauler makes it to its destination, or survives.
Just talking about the interdiction minigame is extremely myopic. Calling someone a liar because they are viewing the big picture in context you overlook... seems very childish.

Using a the vagaries of your own alternative proposal that youve failed to properly detail because it needs its own thread to properly analyse is simply making a stick to beat the OP & derail the thread when challenged.

A solo/PGer, trolling and derailing an Open-Only thread you say? And the ban-happy moderators are nowhere to be seen, you say? How Very Strange, I say

There is a bigger issue even beyond that- hauling has to be difficult, for the prime reason its the pillar that keeps a power out of danger- hence why either NPCs get much harder or players become NPCs. Bigger power = more hauling = more vulnerable otherwise powers can hide behind consolidation and have easy, reliable hauling.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

There is a bigger issue even beyond that- hauling has to be difficult, for the prime reason its the pillar that keeps a power out of danger- hence why either NPCs get much harder or players become NPCs. Bigger power = more hauling = more vulnerable otherwise powers can hide behind consolidation and have easy, reliable hauling.

Or maybe have hauling become a lesser part of powerplay. Or hell, remove hauling. Make it all combat oriented. (not what i'd go for, just throwing it out there). At least if its all combat oriented there can be no accusations of people doing PP just to gank traders. The playing field becomes a lot more level for all participants.

All good PvP games (in my opinion) revolve around a balance between the power of all participants. With hauling vs PvPers, the advantage is all on the attackers side, making it highly unbalanced.

 

[Ian Phillips]

And the ban-happy moderators are nowhere to be seen, you say? How Very Strange, I say

No mate. I'm here.

Discussion forum 101:
- you cannot exclude others simply because they have a different viewpoint.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Or maybe have hauling become a lesser part of powerplay. Or hell, remove hauling. Make it all combat oriented. (not what i'd go for, just throwing it out there). At least if its all combat oriented there can be no accusations of people doing PP just to gank traders. The playing field becomes a lot more level for all participants.

All good PvP games (in my opinion) revolve around a balance between the power of all participants. With hauling vs PvPers, the advantage is all on the attackers side, making it highly unbalanced.

It depends what you want- FD could very well design out hauling but right now we are operating under the assumption the main structure of Powerplay is staying (hence these suggestion threads).

A minor point- you can't gank a trader in PP because there are no traders- they are in effect paramilitary transports. Your pledge puts you in danger (just like when cargo runs have pirates with them- just in PPs case more) or from other players.

The other is that hauling if / when harder then demands support from that powers group- just because its harder does not mean powers are going to simply abandon people because they won't. @CMDR Foursyth and other hauling power co-coordinators will attest to that. If a power can't fortify then its stuffed, and that power has to adopt tactics to keep the materials flowing (either direct via disrupting intruders, building intel on other powers movements, and education with builds, skills).

So in the end the balance lies in making powers vulnerable enough so others can attack, and that player level PvP has to be harder to get that (which in turn encourages teamwork and / or changing your own ship to compensate).

 

[GloatingSwine]

what is the point of talking about rebalancing interdiction without considering the end result, which in a Powerplay context is ofc whether a hauler makes it to its destination, or survives.
Just talking about the interdiction minigame is extremely myopic. Calling someone a liar because they are viewing the big picture in context you overlook... seems very childish.

Ignoring the interdiction minigame because you can escape afterwards != "viewing the big picture".

The interdiction minigame currently isn't doing its job. Against NPCs it's impossible to fail except on purpose, against players of even skill it's impossible to win. Which means it needs extra work.

Also, although people like to talk about assumption of risk in the context of PvP hauling, they don't talk about assumption of risk for the people interdicting the hauler. Because the optimum evasion strategy is to submit and high wake, as soon as the patrolling player starts the interdiction minigame they've basically "won", they've slowed or stopped that delivery.

Which is why there also needs to be some risk to performing an interdiction, even if the only risk is "burn out your interdictor and have to dock/afmu to repair it" (potentially allowing deliveries through because you're unable to interdict for a few minutes, or compromising "pure" combat builds the way the combat players want to compromise "pure" trucking builds.)*

That means the interdiction minigame needs to change such that it takes more effort for a player to pull down another player, and there are defensive options for the player being interdicted that are not submit and high wake. (eg. someone suggested in another thread a stabiliser module, where the relative size of the interdictor and stabiliser make the game longer for the interdictor).

It needs to come with a consequence for doing it, like heat buildup in the interdictor the longer it is running so that if you can't pull a target down efficiently enough you start to burn out the interdictor module or come out cooking when you do so they have a few extra seconds whilst you cool off or you have to sacrifice something for a heatsink.


* Another possible compromise: What if the best way to counter PP hauling wasn't to just nix the delievery but to steal the cargo and deliver it to your own power contact.