And uncapped UM turns that on its head, because now the most profitable systems are the ones most at risk because you can't count on them always propping you up. Uncapped means until they stop, you can't stop- this can mean driving them away or doing the same back because if those systems are fully UMed at the end, they generate no CC.
In effect you are making an ad hoc CG where one side has to overcome the attack in any way they can, rather than using maths and obscure rules.
Instancing is always going to be a problem, just as blocking lists. But stuff like this still happens because potentially you can't know where the next attack will be.
In the end only by doing it will you see if it works.
A Cutter set for min max cargo is weak, any change to that due to the potential for attack is going to make min max risky (as it should be). Hauling cargo should always be a balance between ship size, defences and capacity. Solo allows you to max cargo with hardly any risk.
Its why PvE wise Powerplay has to change, but players can get as inventive as they like stopping people keeping you on your toes.
Powerplay currently favours min maxing for hauling, because you can do it in total safety. You have to make it so that attack is easier than defence so holding territory is more difficult.
And already you have started thinking about better strategies to overcome things. Imagine what hauling / attacking would be like where the opposition can do anything (as opposed to NPCs that do....very little).
But thats a fault of the wider game and not Powerplay though. Plus, in the PvE example you have to drop to a NAV to find your secret rendezvous, then SC there and then ensure your drop point is free of attackers. With no station to protect you / the NPC, you have to think about more than simple cargo capacity if two G5 NPC Corvettes are after you.
Its the only way to make Powerplay actually punchy and bring combatants together though. The Powerplay game board is stuffed to the max with no room to ever expand because defence is far to easy- hauling is safe, consolidation is rife each week (with no negative drawbacks) and you have maths on your side. The only move powers have is weaponised expansions which are protracted slugging matches- uncapped UM swaps that for logical reasons to attack.
You also forget that Sandro suggested vote to drop bad systems- the very first thing powers would do is drop all the crap and have a glut of CC- you need ways to punch through that, and to give Powers the temptation of expansion by making others vulnerable.
Powerplays biggest
technical issue is that its far too easy to hold territory. Powerplay now for a long time is largely static because Powers can sit tight, fortify to generate CC, consolidate each week, know each and every fort run can be 100% safe and efficient. We have huge powers that can't be hurt, when it should be the larger you are the harder it is to stay that way. But making the only way to hurt another power a massive abstraction is taking away visceral gameplay which a feature like PP needs.
Powerplay also needs
reasons to expand too- the rewards need looking at, and the Galactic Standing should mean more to keep that desire to improve. Some Powers have rubbish rewards, and need a look desperately.
Making a more convoluted BGS with arcane rules is not the way to go- Powerplay is anti abstraction at player level and needs to push in that direction to be more sucessful. The 'pan modal essence' has not worked, and keeps PP in the shadow of the BGS- and why do we need two (well, one properly formed and the other a shell) of the same thing?
In the end Powerplay long term has to stand apart and justify its inclusion- it has to offer something new that nothing else in ED can do. We already have an excellent pan modal conflict simulator in the BGS, I'd hope FD at least try to make something different.
