Making Powerplay Merit Hauling Fun and Profitable

[DemiserofD]

I've been thinking a lot about Powerplay recently. About how many players want an open-only environment, while for others, that's the last thing they want. How these two poles could be brought together.

I think the first thing to realize is that, when it comes to pvp, we don't NEED any help for gankers. Gankers find plenty of targets on their own, and the incentives for Ganking are already fully explored.

What needs to be incentivized are more complex behaviors, like Piracy. The current setup puts very little weight or drive behind player/player piracy.

At the same time, we need to mitigate the losses on the defending side. Losing a truckload of Merits doesn't cost much in the way of credits, true, but it DOES cost you in terms of all the time spent clicking through menus, which in a way is even worse. Nothing is worse than being forced to repeat a sequence of annoyances over and over every time you die.

With all this in mind, I have an idea for a new system, a replacement for the current Merit Hauling. Hopefully this new system will retain the spirit, while making it fresh and interesting, and also protecting traders, while encouraging piracy.

Step One: Merits are replaced by Standard Commodities.

Each Power will have a specific commodity that has some relationship with their aspects. For example, Archon Delaine might be Narcotics, while Patreus might be Non-Lethal Weapons, and Winters might be Survival Equipment.

Players must bring these commodities to the Home System, where they are sold at full value. This becomes a lucrative traderoute for players in this faction. But that's not the end of it.

Once sold, the players earn a modified version of that same commodity, which is then delivered out to the varying systems. However, these modified commodities are condensed from the normal version; for example, for 50 Narcotics hauled to Archon Delaine, you might get a SINGLE ton of his signature Blue Narcotics. This crate is given for free, but when delivered to the target system, pays off approximately as well as the initial trades did. For example, you can buy Narcotics for as low as 1000 credits, and sell them for as high as 11000 credits. Therefore, the crate of Blue Narcotics, worth the trade of 50 normal Narcotics, would have a value of 500,000 credits!(this process could, in theory only work in Open, and said commodities disappearing from your cargo hold and reappearing at the Home system when you swap to Solo).

Here's some possibilities, all selected to have relatively similar trade values(except Crop Harvesters, they'd need to be buffed, but as someone who works on a farm, they're way too cheap anyway).

Hudson	Reactive Armor	Core Dynamics Body Armor
Patreus	Non-Lethal Weapons	Imperial Stun Weaponry
Mahon	Crop Harvesters	Advanced Crop Harvesters
Duval	Imperial Slaves	Imperial Servants
Aisling	Consumer Technology	Brand-Name Technology
Torval	Slaves	Torval Imperial Slaves
LYR	Auto-Fabricators	iFabricator
Delaine	Narcotics	Blue Narcotics
Antal	Progentor Cells	Utopian Medicines
Winters	Survival Equipment	Refugee Shelters
Grom	Gold	Stamped Gold Bullion

This condensing feature has two benefits. For one, it means players can take ships less optimized for raw hauling when they enter enemy territory. This makes it more fair for them, and gives them a better chance of survival. Players could even take small ships like an Eagle and ferry 2-4 commodities at a time and still have an impact.

But on the flipside, it means that enemies have the ability to steal reasonable amounts of highly valuable commodities from them, even in smaller ships built around piracy, and it makes this piracy well worth it.

Lastly the relative values of these varying commodities would be based, in part on the galactic status of the Power. The more systems they control, the more valuable their commodities become. This pushes players to want to expand their power to help their own trade routes become more profitable.

The last step of this would be de-incentivizing the wanton murder of enemy forces.

Step Two: Penalizing Players for Wanton Murder

As I said, Ganking already has more than enough incentives for doing it, it doesn't need any more. And while giving players valuable commodities in their holds is a good incentive to pirate them first, it's no incentive not to pop them after, anyway.

Basically, I think that killing over a certain number of non-hostile forces on an opposing faction should begin to negatively impact your ranking in your own Power. After all, while these Powers are fighting each other, they also have a reputation to maintain, and even someone like Archon Delaine doesn't want to make people SO angry at him that they declare all-out war.

Of course, there would be exceptions to this rule. If you encounter someone pirating someone from your side/actively committing a crime, you should be able to blow them up without consequences. And if you come under attack while pirating someone, you should be able to fire back with impunity. What should be very much discouraged is killing harmless traders, especially since it might lead to them just self-destructing next time before you can steal their stuff. Piracy depends on an unspoken contract of behavior; you give me your stuff without a fight, and I won't be forced to kill you.

Result

Hopefully, the results of this would be a system that encourages players to join and expand Powers, while encouraging more brands of gameplay than JUST blowing up every enemy you see.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Its an interesting idea, and one that is similar to ones in the past where fort materials are replaced by a sellable commodity. But in reality your logic is flawed- you are not dealing with the core problem, just adding more busy work (a new hauling leg). You also misunderstand the link between fortification and attack.

Piracy in the past was a thing in Powerplay, but enabled so called 'collusion' piracy because you could launder merits (i.e. one pirated merit was worth more than one merit redeemed). You have to be careful that players don't simply use that facility to multiply credits just for that purpose.

You touched on the first problem- the UI. FD needs to sort that out first.

Second, you don't need anything extra other than making commodities free at pickup (i.e. the reverse of now), and that you are paid properly on delivery- say, 15,000 per 10 (so 750 (i.e. a Cutter / T-9) is worth 11.25 million a run, which seems a fair price (subject to balance). This could be modififed by distance (like rares) so long trips (which are riskier) are worth the full amount and short trips less perhaps.

By making the commodities free you can then get rid of allocations and just fill up the space in your ship all at once.

A third change: make prep cargo free also (so it comes down to effort and not your credit balance). Also- preparation cargo delivered is worth 1/10 of delivering fortification merits, maybe even make it so you gain no money.

Why?

If you make all cargo (fort + prep) free you break the chain of credits buying cargo, ergo collusion piracy is no more and credits earned become personal (i.e. they can't benefit the power). This means less 5C issues in prep potentially, because its down to effort and not simply buying more and more. Along with Sandros proposed 5C changes (weighting systems) it might be enough to solve the problem.

This then means powers can put a substantial bounty on rival power commodities safely. You could charge double, or even quadruple (so 750 pirated cargo = 40 million credits).

and even someone like Archon Delaine doesn't want to make people SO angry at him that they declare all-out war.

The last step of this would be de-incentivizing the wanton murder of enemy forces

I'm a bit puzzled at what you think Powerplay is in your second section. Since only players can move commodities to fortify, why wouldn't a power want you to stop the other? Powerplay has its own C+P rules separate from 'real' C+P anyway.

Regards Archon Delaine, he executes prisoners as deterrence, I don't think he cares, and neither do the other powers about reputation- they oppose via blowing up ships and its a bit naive to think its anything other than a shadow war, they have no reputation to uphold, just impose themselves and their ideology via fair means or foul. If you are against 'wanton murder' then make Open merits worth more (as Sandro suggested in his second flash topic) so players have a choice. If you want piracy to be a thing, don't punish combat players but instead bribe them with money (as set out above) instead- so rather than this 'gentleman's pirate' idea you simply hope dropping your goods will distract people long enough to escape- or build ships that can evade better.

Lastly, I don't agree that Powerplay should be based on trading. From what you describe it would keep attack the dull chore it is now (i.e. no direct PvP at all, just mindless grinding on NPCs), and make fortifying double the length- to me that sounds.....not good, simply as its 'dealing' with the problem of opposition by penalizing you for being aggressive and forcing you to UM NPCs or oppose in the slowest way possible. Piracy is also tricky and difficult, and it has some profound tactical advantage otherwise no-one will bother with it after a while- unless you get it all (in which case where do you put it, you have to fly back and cash it in) you'll be wasting your time.

 

[DemiserofD]

just adding more busy work (a new hauling leg).

Eh, I don't agree. You can easily balance the total amount of time so that it takes the same amount of time in the end. The amount of total work would remain the same, the difference is that now players actually have to interact with the universe for the system to function, which I think is a profound improvement.

I also don't think collusion piracy would be any more of a problem than before.

I'm a bit puzzled at what you think Powerplay is in your second section. Since only players can move commodities to fortify, why wouldn't a power want you to stop the other? Powerplay has its own C+P rules separate from 'real' C+P anyway.

Regards Archon Delaine, he executes prisoners as deterrence, I don't think he cares, and neither do the other powers about reputation- they oppose via blowing up ships and its a bit naive to think its anything other than a shadow war, they have no reputation to uphold, just impose themselves and their ideology via fair means or foul. If you are against 'wanton murder' then make Open merits worth more (as Sandro suggested in his second flash topic) so players have a choice. If you want piracy to be a thing, don't punish combat players but instead bribe them with money (as set out above) instead- so rather than this 'gentleman's pirate' idea you simply hope dropping your goods will distract people long enough to escape- or build ships that can evade better.

Lastly, I don't agree that Powerplay should be based on trading. From what you describe it would keep attack the dull chore it is now (i.e. no direct PvP at all, just mindless grinding on NPCs), and make fortifying double the length- to me that sounds.....not good, simply as its 'dealing' with the problem of opposition by penalizing you for being aggressive and forcing you to UM NPCs or oppose in the slowest way possible. Piracy is also tricky and difficult, and it has some profound tactical advantage otherwise no-one will bother with it after a while- unless you get it all (in which case where do you put it, you have to fly back and cash it in) you'll be wasting your time.

My goal is more about incentivizing more complex forms of gameplay. Killing traders is basically the simplest action you can do with a ship with a gun attached to it. I want to make things more complex by adding the piracy requirement, and by making that piracy more difficult by reducing the total amount of cargo that needs to be moved, it allows for a wider variety of ship types to be used, again making things more interesting. You COULD see a whole bunch of small or medium ships hauling in small cargoes, or you COULD see a heavily armored Cutter guarded by other players carrying one BIG load. But this way Traders aren't put in a second-class position by NEEDING the support of other players to be effective. It's an option, but they also have other choices available to them, and it's a legitimate challenge for the combat players as well.

A way you could potentially meet a middle ground between open and solo might be that the new commodities, if unclaimed by their owner at the end of the week, go into a public pool. You could only claim them in Open, that way solo players can still haul the raw commodities to the Home system in safety, but they must be delivered in Open.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

I think the first place to start is that if you play Powerplay you should make money, or at least not lose money, from playing Powerplay. The ideal solution would be not having Merit Decay but rather have Merits be spent in a shop on a variety of reward packs/bonuses with Credits being one of the options.

However, should FDev find the time to rebalance Powerplay rewards in 2021 I think something like the above would be unrealistic considering the work on Odyssey. As such, I would look at reducing the Salary significantly (in view of removing it at a later point) with successful delivery of Power Commodities covering the fast tracking cost and claiming Power Bonds also rewarding CZ equivalent level of Credits.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Rubbernuke]

Eh, I don't agree. You can easily balance the total amount of time so that it takes the same amount of time in the end. The amount of total work would remain the same, the difference is that now players actually have to interact with the universe for the system to function, which I think is a profound improvement.

What you are essentially doing is bolting a source mission onto Powerplay hauling, which to me at least is not really generating more interaction- its you trying to source X and go to Y to send Z to A. Is the supply fixed? What happens if a rival buys them? Will they be in control systems, random etc? Is supply subject to the BGS? Are all Powers doing this (since some powers are inbound fortifiers, and others outbound).

I also don't think collusion piracy would be any more of a problem than before.

I was trying to illustrate that Powerplay has had piracy in the past, and how it really did not work.

My goal is more about incentivizing more complex forms of gameplay.

IMO at least complex gameplay comes from the strategy side, and the teamwork and minute to minute as you fly as you enact the plans.

Killing traders is basically the simplest action you can do with a ship with a gun attached to it. I want to make things more complex by adding the piracy requirement, and by making that piracy more difficult by reducing the total amount of cargo that needs to be moved, it allows for a wider variety of ship types to be used, again making things more interesting. You COULD see a whole bunch of small or medium ships hauling in small cargoes, or you COULD see a heavily armored Cutter guarded by other players carrying one BIG load. But this way Traders aren't put in a second-class position by NEEDING the support of other players to be effective. It's an option, but they also have other choices available to them, and it's a legitimate challenge for the combat players as well.

Small ships can be made to be relevant if they have opposition they need to escape from (and certain systems not having L pads)- but I do like the idea of condensing the cargo to give them a use. Piracy is too slow to be of tactical use though, because the pirate would either need cargo space themselves or leave the cargo to rot to save time- in the end the disruption by piracy IMO won't be enough to make a difference to make people need or want to do it.

A way you could potentially meet a middle ground between open and solo might be that the new commodities, if unclaimed by their owner at the end of the week, go into a public pool. You could only claim them in Open, that way solo players can still haul the raw commodities to the Home system in safety, but they must be delivered in Open.

IMO this is too convoluted- you might as well have solo /PG work to generate and Open to move and keep it separate and cleaner.

 

[DemiserofD]

What you are essentially doing is bolting a source mission onto Powerplay hauling, which to me at least is not really generating more interaction- its you trying to source X and go to Y to send Z to A. Is the supply fixed? What happens if a rival buys them? Will they be in control systems, random etc? Is supply subject to the BGS? Are all Powers doing this (since some powers are inbound fortifiers, and others outbound).

Those are all great questions, and solving them could make powerplay much more fun and interesting! Which is basically the whole point. Heck, if you did things right, you could even remove Overhead entirely, replaced by the bubble's supply of needed commodities. You'd need a way to generate new commodities(IE, Grom could just mine more gold, but others would need some way to generate new stuff), but overall it could make the process quite interesting, as you'd need to mix trade with BGS interaction, triggering booms and stuff to maximize the supply of your target resources. It would also synergize with the Power's own bonuses.

Overall it could make a very bland system very complex and interesting!

I was trying to illustrate that Powerplay has had piracy in the past, and how it really did not work.

Ah, I see what you mean. A simple solution would be to penalize the delivering player for losing the commodity instead of delivering it. You'd penalize them in terms of Power reputation/rank, which would cause them to lose access to some of their commodities, which would then be spread among other players in good standing. This means that failure would need to take place on a global level, rather than just one specific player hurting the entire power, since they'd basically have to pay off their debt to the whole faction before they could claim more of their own.

IE, they get 1 commodity per 50 gold delivered. They then give 20 Stamped Gold Bullion to an enemy player, but this costs them 1000 gold deliveries worth of Power Merits, putting them at -1000. They must then deliver 1000 more gold to the station before they can claim more Bullion, but the delivered gold still generates more Stamped Gold Bullion, it's just spread among other players for free.

There are ways to solve the problem.

Small ships can be made to be relevant if they have opposition they need to escape from (and certain systems not having L pads)- but I do like the idea of condensing the cargo to give them a use. Piracy is too slow to be of tactical use though, because the pirate would either need cargo space themselves

Well, yeah, exactly. That's exactly the point. Traders need to sacrifice effectiveness for the sake of survival; now combat ships would need to do the same thing, because you can't just blow up your target, you need to steal their goods instead, and then deliver them to your own power.

It wouldn't really matter if they want to do it; since killing players wouldn't help anymore(other than just slowing them down), and the only way to undermine would be by stealing these commodities, you would need to do it to effectively stop a fortification or preparation. Again, players don't need incentive to kill people, they need incentive to do other, more complex activities like piracy.

You'd need to balance things a bit differently, of course. Piracy would be substantially more difficult, so the total number of commodities needed to counteract fortification would need to drop quite a bit. But that's okay. You could even do it automatically; just have a system that auto-adjusts the proportions based on which happens more often. Fortification is happening too often? Each time a fortification succeeds, the amount needed to undermine is reduced slightly. Eventually undermining becomes too easy, and it corrects, eventually balancing at roughly even odds, perhaps with a slight intentional bias towards fortification, since defense should really have the advantage in any realistic scenario.

 

[DemiserofD]

Are all Powers doing this (since some powers are inbound fortifiers, and others outbound).

Oh, I didn't mention this part; simple solution, players deliver commodities to the home system, then things proceed as normal. So either they collect from there and deliver, or they collect from the fortification system and take them back. Since collecting the commodities is tied to your merits in the Power, it doesn't really matter which way the process goes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Those are all great questions, and solving them could make powerplay much more fun and interesting! Which is basically the whole point. Heck, if you did things right, you could even remove Overhead entirely, replaced by the bubble's supply of needed commodities. You'd need a way to generate new commodities(IE, Grom could just mine more gold, but others would need some way to generate new stuff), but overall it could make the process quite interesting, as you'd need to mix trade with BGS interaction, triggering booms and stuff to maximize the supply of your target resources. It would also synergize with the Power's own bonuses.

Overall it could make a very bland system very complex and interesting!

Making things rely on the BGS is a fun idea, but the problem becomes the BGS and others effects on it. It would not be fair if someone buys all the materials that you rely on for example- and I know thats what would happen. The idea has depth in this regard but I'm not sure really if its the right area to focus on, since it has a lot of variables that could shut out a Power through no fault of their own- it might not even be a rival power but a PMF, or that you are stuck next to a busy system (or that you have an incredibly stable lore locked one). Powerplay as it is now works in that your power generates what it needs to move automatically so everyone is equal in that regard.

Ah, I see what you mean. A simple solution would be to penalize the delivering player for losing the commodity instead of delivering it. You'd penalize them in terms of Power reputation/rank, which would cause them to lose access to some of their commodities, which would then be spread among other players in good standing. This means that failure would need to take place on a global level, rather than just one specific player hurting the entire power, since they'd basically have to pay off their debt to the whole faction before they could claim more of their own.

IE, they get 1 commodity per 50 gold delivered. They then give 20 Stamped Gold Bullion to an enemy player, but this costs them 1000 gold deliveries worth of Power Merits, putting them at -1000. They must then deliver 1000 more gold to the station before they can claim more Bullion, but the delivered gold still generates more Stamped Gold Bullion, it's just spread among other players for free.

There are ways to solve the problem.

That sounds sensible- its a bit like the 'Trust' value I explored in my own ideas (except its at a player level only), in that by failing you lose trust to the point it affects how a power supplies you.

Well, yeah, exactly. That's exactly the point. Traders need to sacrifice effectiveness for the sake of survival; now combat ships would need to do the same thing, because you can't just blow up your target, you need to steal their goods instead, and then deliver them to your own power.

But they would not do that, because its inefficient to do so- that is, unless piracy was the only way you got money in the power.

It wouldn't really matter if they want to do it; since killing players wouldn't help anymore(other than just slowing them down), and the only way to undermine would be by stealing these commodities, you would need to do it to effectively stop a fortification or preparation. Again, players don't need incentive to kill people, they need incentive to do other, more complex activities like piracy.

The tactical objective is to stop that hauler getting through though- thats the goal. Doing it with piracy would be horrific, mainly as piracy is really, really tricky with players (combat logging), and NPCs would need to step up too- which is a problem since players are never in areas that allow NPC piracy at all (and NPC interdictions are easy to avoid). The balance would be firmly in a defenders favour which would make attack on a power level really awkward (which in turn means less turmoils and territory to fight over).

You'd need to balance things a bit differently, of course. Piracy would be substantially more difficult, so the total number of commodities needed to counteract fortification would need to drop quite a bit. But that's okay. You could even do it automatically; just have a system that auto-adjusts the proportions based on which happens more often. Fortification is happening too often? Each time a fortification succeeds, the amount needed to undermine is reduced slightly. Eventually undermining becomes too easy, and it corrects, eventually balancing at roughly even odds, perhaps with a slight intentional bias towards fortification, since defense should really have the advantage in any realistic scenario.

Piracy would have to be much more effective, and it would be horrible to balance out (unlike now which is 1:1 really). To anyone wanting to attack a power it would be a nightmare since you can't really know what to aim for and the system sounds illogical- the defender / attacker is punished for being good at what they do.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Oh, I didn't mention this part; simple solution, players deliver commodities to the home system, then things proceed as normal. So either they collect from there and deliver, or they collect from the fortification system and take them back. Since collecting the commodities is tied to your merits in the Power, it doesn't really matter which way the process goes.

Then you have the problem in that some powers will be easy to disrupt (while others harder) since the condensed item is outbound for some (and inbound for others). If this is to be player driven, everything needs to be unified really to be fair.

 

[DemiserofD]

Then you have the problem in that some powers will be easy to disrupt (while others harder) since the condensed item is outbound for some (and inbound for others). If this is to be player driven, everything needs to be unified really to be fair.

Not really. If it's already that way, what's the harm in it staying that way?

It'd make some powers more defensively minded, sure. But that's probably okay. Powers can have different traits. Sure, some might end up with an advantage over others, but people would know that when they signed up. Heck, maybe it would even drive alliances of multiple powers to curtail the strength of the more dominant power. Emergent gameplay and all.

It would not be fair if someone buys all the materials that you rely on for example- and I know thats what would happen.

Why not? Sounds like a legitimate strategy to me.

Of course, factions would need some alternative method to generate those resources if the economy falls out on them, but that's part of the fun, too. Yuri Grom people mining for Gold, for example, would be something no other faction would particularly bother with. Heck, you'd even see Yuri Grom carriers buying Gold at exorbitant prices to help drive their BGS efforts. That sort of thing would be a really cool extension of Powerplay actually impacting the universe in tangible ways!

But they would not do that, because its inefficient to do so- that is, unless piracy was the only way you got money in the power.

Yeah, it would have to be the primary way. My thought was that murder could start out being similar to now, but with diminishing returns and potentially eventual negatives if you did it too much.

It should be used like a scalpel, not like a hatchet. These are shadow wars, after all, not all-out wars.

The tactical objective is to stop that hauler getting through though- thats the goal. Doing it with piracy would be horrific, mainly as piracy is really, really tricky with players (combat logging), and NPCs would need to step up too- which is a problem since players are never in areas that allow NPC piracy at all (and NPC interdictions are easy to avoid). The balance would be firmly in a defenders favour which would make attack on a power level really awkward (which in turn means less turmoils and territory to fight over).

Having the condensed commodities would help a lot with this. You wouldn't need to pirate too much to both make a nice profit AND substantially delay their efforts. On the flipside, piracy being difficult would be important, it's supposed to be a legitimate challenge, after all. I would far rather have Piracy be very difficult and pay extremely well, than be too easy and therefore not pay very much.

Piracy would have to be much more effective, and it would be horrible to balance out (unlike now which is 1:1 really). To anyone wanting to attack a power it would be a nightmare since you can't really know what to aim for and the system sounds illogical- the defender / attacker is punished for being good at what they do.

Not every activity should be rewarded. Just because you're good at something doesn't mean it's what your Power wants.

Blowing up enemy ships is great - in a defensive context. Whether that be defending your pirate as he steals commodities, or defending the trader from being pirated. But in no way should wanton violence be rewarded; players have more than enough incentive to do that even with significant downsides. Ideally even the ships you blow up for undermining should be privateers pirating your hauling ships, not you just blowing up enemy hauling ships wholesale. That would make that part of powerplay more entertaining too, if they actually gave a legitimate challenge.

I think that even if murder were far more heavily penalized, players would still do it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not really. If it's already that way, what's the harm in it staying that way?

It'd make some powers more defensively minded, sure. But that's probably okay. Powers can have different traits. Sure, some might end up with an advantage over others, but people would know that when they signed up. Heck, maybe it would even drive alliances of multiple powers to curtail the strength of the more dominant power. Emergent gameplay and all.

Then it means some powers have an advantage since your idea is about PvP piracy. There was a reason why Sandros proposal did what it did, and that was to condense Powerplay areas and increase the chances of coming across someone else. Along with your other ideas some powers will be almost impossible to play having poor position and inbound forting.

Why not? Sounds like a legitimate strategy to me.

And how do you defend against that? Blow up anyone who is not in your power? You could stuff it all on FCs, but then that would mean FCs are a prerequisite for Powerplay which to me is wrong.

Of course, factions would need some alternative method to generate those resources if the economy falls out on them, but that's part of the fun, too. Yuri Grom people mining for Gold, for example, would be something no other faction would particularly bother with. Heck, you'd even see Yuri Grom carriers buying Gold at exorbitant prices to help drive their BGS efforts. That sort of thing would be a really cool extension of Powerplay actually impacting the universe in tangible ways!

It would, but you'd have to be careful that every power has some semblance of balance in the game loop, otherwise it would be horrible for some and too easy for others.

Yeah, it would have to be the primary way. My thought was that murder could start out being similar to now, but with diminishing returns and potentially eventual negatives if you did it too much.

It should be used like a scalpel, not like a hatchet. These are shadow wars, after all, not all-out wars.

One way (rather than make merits the punishment) would be to make attacks 'call' escalating amounts of help from a power, like security but much chunkier. So the more you attack, the more power ships turn up. Punishing by merits will turn people off, just as merit decay did.

Having the condensed commodities would help a lot with this. You wouldn't need to pirate too much to both make a nice profit AND substantially delay their efforts. On the flipside, piracy being difficult would be important, it's supposed to be a legitimate challenge, after all. I would far rather have Piracy be very difficult and pay extremely well, than be too easy and therefore not pay very much.

Unless it makes a zany amount of profit people won't do it, and I'm not convinced what (having pirated and seen people pirated in CGs) the relative amounts required would be- some powers have it hard because of fort direction some will be impossible to pirate. As an example, an outbound fortifer would be immune to interception, while they peddle low cost items into the capital, meaning defence is too easy. Either all powers have equality, or these outbound powers face other obstacles to balance it out.

Not every activity should be rewarded. Just because you're good at something doesn't mean it's what your Power wants.

In the end Powerplay is a game about gaining territory and making others lose territory for you to take.

Blowing up enemy ships is great - in a defensive context.

Destroying enemy shipping anywhere makes sense. You are pledged to a power, wherever you go you should be careful- otherwise, whats the point? Blowing ships up in a capital, expansion or prep area makes sense since it degrades your enemy. This has to be quick otherwise the game becomes too focussed on slow activities that don't favour attack. Powerplay itself has to favour attack over defence, otherwise powers gain too much territory and never drop it, breaking the cycle of acquisition.

Whether that be defending your pirate as he steals commodities, or defending the trader from being pirated.
But in no way should wanton violence be rewarded; players have more than enough incentive to do that even with significant downsides. Ideally even the ships you blow up for undermining should be privateers pirating your hauling ships, not you just blowing up enemy hauling ships wholesale. That would make that part of powerplay more entertaining too, if they actually gave a legitimate challenge.

You are already penalised for destroying your own ships: -30 merits.

Plus, there is no incentive to blow up ships right now- unless Open was 'the' mode, or Open was weighted more making it a risk / reward.

'Wanton' violence should be part of it- unlike piracy its fast and still requires teamplay to overcome when it happens / is a possibility. It also does not require balancing- one kill is equal to one fort merit, so simplicity is on its side. And as I mentioned a few answers ago, Powerplay started out with piracy being the way- one stolen merit was equal to 5 UM merits if I recall....and yet outside collusion piracy hardly anyone did it as a tactic to stop another power. You can do it now but its 1:1- but good luck finding people and getting them to play nice too.

I think that even if murder were far more heavily penalized, players would still do it.

Because its a more efficient use to time and energy in this context. If you are outnumbered, making piracy the way to attack means you slow down attack overall and you lose the element of surprise. It would magnify problems between different sized powers too, because of the extra time taken.

 

[DemiserofD]

Then it means some powers have an advantage since your idea is about PvP piracy. There was a reason why Sandros proposal did what it did, and that was to condense Powerplay areas and increase the chances of coming across someone else. Along with your other ideas some powers will be almost impossible to play having poor position and inbound forting.

Maybe, but it's the way it currently is, and outside the scope of this particular suggestion. So I'm just not going to worry about it very much. I like to keep things fairly specific.

And how do you defend against that? Blow up anyone who is not in your power? You could stuff it all on FCs, but then that would mean FCs are a prerequisite for Powerplay which to me is wrong.

Maybe. Or maybe you could purposefully trigger booms at the correct time to get yourself enough Commodities to work with. In any case, buying out every single commodity in the universe would be quite the challenge, something that would only probably happen to the current dominant power. Which I think is okay, the top slot should be kind of a constantly changing thing.

Punishing by merits will turn people off, just as merit decay did.

Okay.

Destroying enemy shipping anywhere makes sense. You are pledged to a power, wherever you go you should be careful- otherwise, whats the point? Blowing ships up in a capital, expansion or prep area makes sense since it degrades your enemy. This has to be quick otherwise the game becomes too focussed on slow activities that don't favour attack. Powerplay itself has to favour attack over defence, otherwise powers gain too much territory and never drop it, breaking the cycle of acquisition.

I actually don't agree with this assertion on a fundamental level. This is a bit of a Sidetrack from discussion of the suggestion itself, but you've brought it up a few times now; the trouble with favoring offense over defense is that with an offensive Focus, power will tend to grow exponentially, rather than Plateau as it currently does. The end result would be One Singular dominant power, likely forever, because their head start would simply be so huge.

Ultimately I don't think the real problem has anything to do with which of the two (offense and defense) is favored, but rather with the fundamental presuppositions of the game. The only objective is to take and hold territory. Naturally, players will take and hold as much as they can, until things reach a natural equilibrium. Right now, that equilibrium consists of overlapping bubbles that touch each other, but even if you were to change the game such that those bubbles no longer touch each other, the same stagnant stability would remain the same. If you want to change that, you need to change the fundamental principles of the game, not just the way the game is played.

If you want to discuss this further, I'd be happy to do so with you, but would prefer it if you would separate it into its own thread.

Powerplay started out with piracy being the way- one stolen merit was equal to 5 UM merits if I recall....and yet outside collusion piracy hardly anyone did it as a tactic to stop another power. You can do it now but its 1:1- but good luck finding people and getting them to play nice too.

One profound difference would be the fact that this variance would be substantially more weighted than even the earliest versions. Given the 1/50 number I mentioned earlier, piracy would actually be biased fairly heavily in the Pirates favor ... assuming of course they can succeed. But success should be difficult and by no means guaranteed. That's the whole point of making it piracy and not just killing people. Things must be biased in favor of the haulers to make things Fair.

A side benefit of this compression would be mitigating the effects of combat logging. A hatch breaker Limpet would only need to release a few commodities for the piracy to have been effective, which can happen in a very short period of time. Even if they menu log, the Pirates should get more than enough to make his time worthwhile. And of course, Force quitting is against the rules and a bannable offense.

Because its a more efficient use to time and energy in this context. If you are outnumbered, making piracy the way to attack means you slow down attack overall and you lose the element of surprise. It would magnify problems between different sized powers too, because of the extra time taken.

That's fine, if you are outnumbered, you should be at a disadvantage anyway. In such a situation, the outnumbered party would likely want to focus their efforts into a single point, while the larger power is forced to disseminate its resources over more systems. This creates good opportunities for tactics and strategy.

Players need absolutely no incentive to blow each other up. They will do it absent a reward, and even in the face of severe punishment. Therefore, there is no need to incentivize it in anyway. People will do it anyway, so it is better to spend effort incentivizing more complex activities like piracy, activities which make the game more interesting as a whole. Not just constant explosions.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Maybe, but it's the way it currently is, and outside the scope of this particular suggestion. So I'm just not going to worry about it very much. I like to keep things fairly specific.

Sadly you can't, because Powerplay is a system that has many co-dependencies that act in parallel and focus on one section causes issues in another.

Maybe. Or maybe you could purposefully trigger booms at the correct time to get yourself enough Commodities to work with. In any case, buying out every single commodity in the universe would be quite the challenge, something that would only probably happen to the current dominant power. Which I think is okay, the top slot should be kind of a constantly changing thing.

The problem is really the (as yet) new states like infrastructure failure that nuke places to buy. And it would not require too much to enact either, since you need to buy within a certain range of the target power, and only in places that have high quantities- some places have pathetically low supplies. So you could just buy out there and there would be no real defence, forcing people to travel further and further.

I actually don't agree with this assertion on a fundamental level. This is a bit of a Sidetrack from discussion of the suggestion itself, but you've brought it up a few times now; the trouble with favoring offense over defense is that with an offensive Focus, power will tend to grow exponentially, rather than Plateau as it currently does. The end result would be One Singular dominant power, likely forever, because their head start would simply be so huge.

Unless a power can be cracked open and drop decent systems, you'll have a gradual accumulation of systems until there is no good places to take. Just look at the history of Powerplay and count the amounts of truly large attacks that result in this happening. Out of 289 weeks, its been about ten times. Thats not dynamic change that people can see to attract people.

Ultimately I don't think the real problem has anything to do with which of the two (offense and defense) is favored, but rather with the fundamental presuppositions of the game. The only objective is to take and hold territory.

Which IMO is short sighted- if its too hard to attack people won't bother- you wind up with the gardening that goes on now where Powers simply tread water and see it as a chore done before you do other things. Just look at the big powers reddits and discords- consolidate, consolidate, no expansions.....there is no drive to do anything.

Naturally, players will take and hold as much as they can, until things reach a natural equilibrium. Right now, that equilibrium consists of overlapping bubbles that touch each other, but even if you were to change the game such that those bubbles no longer touch each other, the same stagnant stability would remain the same. If you want to change that, you need to change the fundamental principles of the game, not just the way the game is played.

Territory needs to be available to fight over, and be harder to hold than now. The point of equilibrium needs to be so that powers are smaller, otherwise there is nothing to play 'for' each week.

If you want to discuss this further, I'd be happy to do so with you, but would prefer it if you would separate it into its own thread.

Fair enough, although its obvious we are diametrically opposed on that point

One profound difference would be the fact that this variance would be substantially more weighted than even the earliest versions. Given the 1/50 number I mentioned earlier, piracy would actually be biased fairly heavily in the Pirates favor ... assuming of course they can succeed. But success should be difficult and by no means guaranteed. That's the whole point of making it piracy and not just killing people. Things must be biased in favor of the haulers to make things Fair.

The thing is haulers already have a bias towards them- no opposition, some powers being outbound (and therefore immune to swarming in a natural choke point). To me you make things fair though teamwork, skill and planning. And because of that bias the bubble is full and with consolidation (which adds +50% onto UM triggers) makes attack impossible in most cases.

That's fine, if you are outnumbered, you should be at a disadvantage anyway. In such a situation, the outnumbered party would likely want to focus their efforts into a single point, while the larger power is forced to disseminate its resources over more systems. This creates good opportunities for tactics and strategy.

Except piracy takes much longer and has a higher chance of failure for the time spent doing it. Its why you'd be on a knife edge balance wise because get the ratio wrong you'd make the territorial game loop fall apart, leading to powers doing what they do today which is gardening.

Players need absolutely no incentive to blow each other up. They will do it absent a reward, and even in the face of severe punishment. Therefore, there is no need to incentivize it in anyway. People will do it anyway, so it is better to spend effort incentivizing more complex activities like piracy, activities which make the game more interesting as a whole. Not just constant explosions.

This is where we disagree the most. I see haulers as a key objective to protect, but to also stop. Having piracy as a lucrative option is fine, but in the end killing should be the primary method of attack.

Logically, why pirate anyway? The objective is to stop the supply, not to use the supply yourself (at a Powerplay level).

EDIT: one possible use for taking cargo / scanning other ships and not blowing them up might be for information- for example, by scanning a rival you might gain intel for that system (and that its the only way to know how a rival power is locally). Those intel canisters could reveal fort levels, which would be useful if it was the only way to find out.

 

[DemiserofD]

The thing is haulers already have a bias towards them- no opposition, some powers being outbound (and therefore immune to swarming in a natural choke point). To me you make things fair though teamwork, skill and planning. And because of that bias the bubble is full and with consolidation (which adds +50% onto UM triggers) makes attack impossible in most cases

They do have a biased towards them while solo play is an option, but if forced to haul in open, that Dynamic reverses dramatically. That's why it's important to offer them the protection of piracy. If the important thing is stealing their cargo, not killing them, then it gives them more leeway for mistakes and makes the game more fun for them. Seeing as they are the most important part of the game from a technical perspective, it's critically important that the game is also fun for them. Dying occasionally is acceptable , and makes things more fun. Dying constantly quickly takes away any sense of enjoyment.

Except piracy takes much longer and has a higher chance of failure for the time spent doing it. Its why you'd be on a knife edge balance wise because get the ratio wrong you'd make the territorial game loop fall apart, leading to powers doing what they do today which is gardening.

It really wouldn't take that long, seeing as you'd be pirating a small number of condensed Commodities rather than large numbers of uncondensed ones.

This is where we disagree the most. I see haulers as a key objective to protect, but to also stop. Having piracy as a lucrative option is fine, but in the end killing should be the primary method of attack.

Logically, why pirate anyway? The objective is to stop the supply, not to use the supply yourself (at a Powerplay level).

I disagree categorically. If for no other reason than, again, players need no incentive to kill other players. The reason you change the game is to improve it; because of this, it's best to focus on less used aspects of the game, bearing in mind that even with the changes, people will still blow each other up with significant regularity.

Speaking strictly from a lore perspective this is why it's important to distinguish the shadow war that is power-play from a real war. The objective of this war is not to kill all of your enemies, is to seize power on a galactic scale. With that in mind, killing the people that will shortly be your own assets is a terribly short-sighted decision. Useful in a limited context, perhaps, but not in any large-scale manner. The same justification is why it's important to take the Commodities rather than destroy them; it's about power and reputation. If you demonstrate that you are unable to protect your interests, people are going to lose faith in you, and your rule will be undermined. By contrast, Commodities that simply go missing can be erased from the records and you can just pretend it never happened.

The cash rewards are just to get players in the door and participating.

 

[Rubbernuke]

They do have a biased towards them while solo play is an option, but if forced to haul in open, that Dynamic reverses dramatically. That's why it's important to offer them the protection of piracy. If the important thing is stealing their cargo, not killing them, then it gives them more leeway for mistakes and makes the game more fun for them. Seeing as they are the most important part of the game from a technical perspective, it's critically important that the game is also fun for them. Dying occasionally is acceptable , and makes things more fun. Dying constantly quickly takes away any sense of enjoyment.

The irony is that the level of deaths would not be that bad- unless powers are going at it you will have quiet cycles- the important part is that when you do go for it someone is potentially round the corner to stop you.

It really wouldn't take that long, seeing as you'd be pirating a small number of condensed Commodities rather than large numbers of uncondensed ones.

Its a bit like I say with my ideas- you'd have to test to find the balance. It would certainly be interesting to see what that level is.

I disagree categorically. If for no other reason than, again, players need no incentive to kill other players. The reason you change the game is to improve it; because of this, it's best to focus on less used aspects of the game, bearing in mind that even with the changes, people will still blow each other up with significant regularity.

The least used aspect is PvP in the main game- going by what features already exist and still function for Powerplay its closer to PvP.

Speaking strictly from a lore perspective this is why it's important to distinguish the shadow war that is power-play from a real war.

The only way to undermine is to kill NPC ships- i.e. murder them. If thats not like gang based violence I don't know what is.

The objective of this war is not to kill all of your enemies, is to seize power on a galactic scale.

For some powers, they expand by killing local forces, via violent means. Every power kills to undermine.

With that in mind, killing the people that will shortly be your own assets is a terribly short-sighted decision. Useful in a limited context, perhaps, but not in any large-scale manner.

Lore wise, thats not the case. Examples: Archon fortifies by sending marked slaves for execution. Pranav sends dissidents for 'reeducation'- even when in charge they do so by extreme methods. Patreus forces systems into insolvency, others use greed or mass surveillance. In short the 'little people' are just meat for the grinder whatever way it goes. Its why they are labelled exploited / control- the power exists for the power in the end.

The same justification is why it's important to take the Commodities rather than destroy them; it's about power and reputation. If you demonstrate that you are unable to protect your interests, people are going to lose faith in you, and your rule will be undermined. By contrast, Commodities that simply go missing can be erased from the records and you can just pretend it never happened.

You don't need to demonstrate anything, thats where undermining comes in as an abstraction / collation of that, along with the concept of CC and turmoil (which is revolt in all but name).

The cash rewards are just to get players in the door and participating.

It would have to be set higher than 'outside', and ensure that money can't buy merits (as not to feed 5C).

 

[DemiserofD]

The least used aspect is PvP in the main game- going by what features already exist and still function for Powerplay its closer to PvP.

Judging by your own comments, piracy is even more rare, and therefore even more deserving of help.

The only way to undermine is to kill NPC ships- i.e. murder them. If thats not like gang based violence I don't know what is.

Which is why I'm proposing this be changed.

Lore wise, thats not the case. Examples: Archon fortifies by sending marked slaves for execution.

Actually, that only supports my point; even archon Delaine, the most bloodthirsty pirate in the universe, only executes a small number of people in order to keep the majority in line. I think that this ethos should be expanded to the entirety of the game; in other words killing should be used like a scalpel, not like a mallet.

It would have to be set higher than 'outside', and ensure that money can't buy merits (as not to feed 5C).

Nah, not necessarily. All you really need to do is make it so that participation is always helpful, even if you fail absolutely. This ensures that failure must be on a broader level, not just on a singular one. For example, gifve, for each 10 Commodities the player earns, an additional 10 are distributed evenly among other players in the faction, then even if that player actively works against his faction 100% of the time, at worst he is still only undoing his own work, not actually harming his power at all.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Judging by your own comments, piracy is even more rare, and therefore even more deserving of help.

It is, but the majority of Powerplays features are closer to supporting PvP- I'm suggesting that FD use what exists. Piracy does need a boost, but in a Powerplay context (IMO at least) it should not be the primary way of doing things.

Which is why I'm proposing this be changed.

I was illustrating why Powerplay is a gang war, in response to you saying its not a real war.

Actually, that only supports my point; even archon Delaine, the most bloodthirsty pirate in the universe, only executes a small number of people in order to keep the majority in line. I think that this ethos should be expanded to the entirety of the game; in other words killing should be used like a scalpel, not like a mallet.

Which still sends hundreds of thousands to die, be 're-educated', financially enslaved or subverted across the powers. That does not include the millions who die in undermining either. ED itself is a dystopia, Powerplay simply makes it more obvious.

Nah, not necessarily. All you really need to do is make it so that participation is always helpful, even if you fail absolutely. This ensures that failure must be on a broader level, not just on a singular one. For example, gifve, for each 10 Commodities the player earns, an additional 10 are distributed evenly among other players in the faction, then even if that player actively works against his faction 100% of the time, at worst he is still only undoing his own work, not actually harming his power at all.

An interesting thought, but how would that be balanced out for the opposition? Currently its 1 UM merit = 1 fort merit. Plus, you'd need a mechanism to prevent 5C from using what you describe to exponentially fortify something bad- the game as it is has no way to tell whats good and bad.

 

[DemiserofD]

It is, but the majority of Powerplays features are closer to supporting PvP- I'm suggesting that FD use what exists. Piracy does need a boost, but in a Powerplay context (IMO at least) it should not be the primary way of doing things.

On what basis? Right now, I'd say PowerPlay is closer to supporting a pure trade based game, and really has very little to do with PVP at all. If we are basing our suggestions on what currently exists, then piracy is much closer to the current format than PVP ever would be.

Which still sends hundreds of thousands to die, be 're-educated', financially enslaved or subverted across the powers. That does not include the millions who die in undermining either. ED itself is a dystopia, Powerplay simply makes it more obvious.

Given that the population of humans is in the trillions, a few hundred thousand people is really not that many on the grand scheme of things. It still fits the idea of the scalpel rather than the hammer quite well.

An interesting thought, but how would that be balanced out for the opposition? Currently its 1 UM merit = 1 fort merit. Plus, you'd need a mechanism to prevent 5C from using what you describe to exponentially fortify something bad- the game as it is has no way to tell whats good and bad.

You'd obviously have to tweak the numbers to find the right balance. It wouldn't do anything against 5C attacks, but they are beyond the scope of this suggestion anyway. You'd have to solve that with something completely different. Can't expect one suggestion to fix everything, though.

 

[Rubbernuke]

On what basis? Right now, I'd say PowerPlay is closer to supporting a pure trade based game, and really has very little to do with PVP at all. If we are basing our suggestions on what currently exists, then piracy is much closer to the current format than PVP ever would be.

explicit pledges (you know who is who)
explicit territory (you know where to trespass)
explicit cargo (i.e. you have two limited cargo types, both of which can tell you instantly what people are doing with them)
explicit locations (preparation / expansion sites, control system and capital)

from these four alone, you can deduce exactly what someone is doing based on pledge, cargo, and location. Unlike the BGS where intentions are hidden (i.e. you can't scan for missions, data held, no outward pledge, territory has no explicit division) in Powerplay you can instantly know what someone is doing. A Winters pledge in a Patreus control system would indicate UM activity. A Torval pledge with prep materials anywhere is going to prepare a system for expansion (since the cargo has no other purpose- it signals intent).

The setup heavily leans towards quick identification- stations too have near real time reports, and the whole PP UI is as real time as it gets (in that its possible to map an event 1:1 in real time unlike the BGS which gathers up all activity anonymously and then moves (so cause and effect are hard to link at a low level).

Given that the population of humans is in the trillions, a few hundred thousand people is really not that many on the grand scheme of things. It still fits the idea of the scalpel rather than the hammer quite well.

I find us arguing over 'a few million' people each week killed or brutally repressed darkly amusing.

You'd obviously have to tweak the numbers to find the right balance. It wouldn't do anything against 5C attacks, but they are beyond the scope of this suggestion anyway. You'd have to solve that with something completely different. Can't expect one suggestion to fix everything, though.

Like I said before sometimes you need to sort out some issues in parallel, because individually it is dangerous to assume it might get fixed.

 

[Tikanderoga]

By making the commodities free you can then get rid of allocations and just fill up the space in your ship all at once.

That should be the case to start with. Even if buying them, filling a cutter in steps of 10 is just mind numbing, nothing else. If I fast track the whole 750 units, why not just give me the option of doing so in the first place? You want 750 units? Here is 7.5m, thanks, next!