Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Darkfyre99]

May be the new PP 2.0 will change those numbers... 0.1% of potential threat would mean there's a lot of beating around the bush for litterally nothing!

I mean, one needs to play like 1000 safe minutes at least to face 1 risky minute.

I doubt it. PP 2.0 is going to be even more spread out than PowerPlay 1.0, and players have (some) control over version (Odyssey vs Horizons), Play Time (Local Prime Time vs Non-), and In-Game Location (Obvious Hot Spots vs Non-).

The problem has always been that Frontier chose the wrong networking solution for PvP combat, especially the fun kind. It’s great for minimizing overhead, but it places two critical components in the control of players: server hardware, and networking hardware.

Which is why we also have instancing rules that favor friends first, gameplay experience second, and opposition not at all.

The thing is, depending on what you do will affect those numbers. Someone who is in a combative power in a place thats under attack (or attacking) is going to see many more people go after them or people in general- for example the eternal FUC / ZYADA battles.

When I pootled around in Harma (vaguely safe space) I'd see plenty of PMF people, some neutral who would go o7, others that were not (since I was at the time wrecking their BGS around Harma systems, I'd see other allied pledges and randoms. Occasionally you'd have an Imperial guy in a PvP ship (but not this time).

From there I'd go to Broo and see an FDL on the pad. Since I was in an Asp I'd not want to tangle with them, so I time my Broo appointment to avoid us taking off together. I do that, and fly away. On my way back I glimpse Imperial pledges, so I get out as fast as I can.

Then I want to buy something and feel lazy, I go to Shin Dhez after swapping ships- we all know what happens next.

My active times would be 5am - 7am, and evenings Francetime, on slow ADSL.

So for me the danger is much higher because of what I'm doing. Doing expansions in Open, or UMing in Open in places that are 'hot' will also ramp things up. When I got my pulse disruptors I helped out and.....found out what life was like as part of the big two. Even part of Antal had its moments- there was a period of fighting over Kenna (wars one and two) where for once Utopia got angry and we saw plenty of Dentons pledges. Normal service was soon resumed and after that the threat level went down. When I module shopped with LYR I was practically invisible though

This is why I think a blanket bonus to Open is a bad idea. It rewards purely hypothetical risk, not actual risk, and encourages behaviors to minimize that risk which won’t be fun for anyone, let alone those interested in PvP. If risk can be reduced by 80% by playing outside of local prime time, many people will do just that, especially if they’re choosing that mode for the sake of efficiency, rather than fun.

If you want to encourage PvP, then you need to reward the PvP, not the mode. And no, a hauler’s reward for surviving shouldn't be mere survival. That’s the null state, what would happen if there was no opposition at all. They should get a bonus for surviving in the face of opposition.

As a player who has little interest in PvP, there is little reason for me to seek out PvP hotspots. And thus my risk is always going to be practically non-existent.

 

[Morbad]

If risk can be reduced by 80% by playing outside of local prime time, many people will do just that, especially if they’re choosing that mode for the sake of efficiency, rather than fun.

That would be fine. Strategic timing is a legitimate and pragmatic risk mitigation strategy. Avoiding the opposition this way doesn't violate the spirit of the competition, and it doesn't rule out direct opposition.

That said, I absolutely agree that a blanket advantage for playing in Open is the wrong kind of incentive and is easily abused, at least without significant modification to the game. It's easy to turn Open into PG or Solo, either with preemptive blocking, or if that is too uncertain, using network rules to reject unwanted peers.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I doubt it. PP 2.0 is going to be even more spread out than PowerPlay 1.0, and players have (some) control over version (Odyssey vs Horizons), Play Time (Local Prime Time vs Non-), and In-Game Location (Obvious Hot Spots vs Non-).

The problem has always been that Frontier chose the wrong networking solution for PvP combat, especially the fun kind. It’s great for minimizing overhead, but it places two critical components in the control of players: server hardware, and networking hardware.

Which is why we also have instancing rules that favor friends first, gameplay experience second, and opposition not at all.



This is why I think a blanket bonus to Open is a bad idea. It rewards purely hypothetical risk, not actual risk, and encourages behaviors to minimize that risk which won’t be fun for anyone, let alone those interested in PvP. If risk can be reduced by 80% by playing outside of local prime time, many people will do just that, especially if they’re choosing that mode for the sake of efficiency, rather than fun.

If you want to encourage PvP, then you need to reward the PvP, not the mode. And no, a hauler’s reward for surviving shouldn't be mere survival. That’s the null state, what would happen if there was no opposition at all. They should get a bonus for surviving in the face of opposition.

As a player who has little interest in PvP, there is little reason for me to seek out PvP hotspots. And thus my risk is always going to be practically non-existent.

I suspect PP2.0 will in practice be a lot less spread out despite this, due to 'tugs of war' being able to go right up to the knuckle on a Thursday morning, particularly when two (or more) PP factions are interested in putting a particular system under their respective boots.

Regading bonuses, although I know Jockey or someone is going to take this as a personal attack, the problem is that the system as it is encourages the behaviours we currently see for the same reason (efficiency), as an open only pilot like myself based on our discussions in the past, you appreciate there is an opportunity cost to flying in open in terms of loadouts, journey times and the ilk which makes its use for Powerplay hauling (on a singular pilot basis, before we get into the multiplication it spirals out from with multiple pilots being involved) unviable. Its why, I suspect, Flash Topic 2 in the day was about weighting the value of PP merits earned or carried in open, which I was very much in favour of.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I suspect PP2.0 will in practice be a lot less spread out despite this, due to 'tugs of war' being able to go right up to the knuckle on a Thursday morning, particularly when two (or more) PP factions are interested in putting a particular system under their respective boots.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes things up.

Regading bonuses, although I know Jockey or someone is going to take this as a personal attack, the problem is that the system as it is encourages the behaviours we currently see for the same reason (efficiency), as an open only pilot like myself based on our discussions in the past, you appreciate there is an opportunity cost to flying in open in terms of loadouts, journey times and the ilk which makes its use for Powerplay hauling (on a singular pilot basis, before we get into the multiplication it spirals out from with multiple pilots being involved) unviable. Its why, I suspect, Flash Topic 2 in the day was about weighting the value of PP merits earned or carried in open, which I was very much in favour of.

I strongly disagree.

The "opportunity cost" of flying shieldless is much greater than flying with reasonable shields (and armor) and taking the risks necessary to make your round trips quickly. I'm a Buckyball Racer, and I have a lot of data on my own performance. Here's a quote from me regarding the latest race:

In retrospect, I may have been better off running the entire race shieldless, especially in unlimited, and repaired only if absolutely necessary to complete a run. I think I aborted some runs due to damage that would’ve improved my upon (added context: shielded) submitted runs.

The race provided a 30 second bonus for running it shieldless with no repairs, and another 30 second bonus if you completed the course either mostly undamaged, or almost destroyed. In a race where your ranking can be down to a few seconds, that bonus can be mighty tempting. But you also tend to get destroyed a lot, even when you're bringing your A-game to the table.

The notion that flying shieldless is somehow more efficient than a ship designed to complete a round trip quickly and safely, regardless of mode, is simply not true. A player flying safely due to maximizing cargo space can take twice as long to as a player willing to Buckyball that same route. I've seen it numerous times when I fly rare CGs. And if I can eliminate the risk by reducing my cargo capacity by 8%, then I come out ahead.

Furthermore, by Buckyballying it to my destination, I greatly reduce my window of vulnerablility to interception by players and NPCs alike, especially now that SCO has been added to the mix. And those same armor and shields that let me Buckyball it safely have proved in the past to be more than sufficient to protect my ship from stray shots as I dive at my attacker until my FSD spools up, or tank an Alpha strike from a station camper.

YMMV

 

[Rubbernuke]

This is why I think a blanket bonus to Open is a bad idea. It rewards purely hypothetical risk, not actual risk, and encourages behaviors to minimize that risk which won’t be fun for anyone, let alone those interested in PvP. If risk can be reduced by 80% by playing outside of local prime time, many people will do just that, especially if they’re choosing that mode for the sake of efficiency, rather than fun.

If you want to encourage PvP, then you need to reward the PvP, not the mode. And no, a hauler’s reward for surviving shouldn't be mere survival. That’s the null state, what would happen if there was no opposition at all. They should get a bonus for surviving in the face of opposition.

As a player who has little interest in PvP, there is little reason for me to seek out PvP hotspots. And thus my risk is always going to be practically non-existent.

It depends on what that bonus is, though. For example I think having a wing bonus in Open (and not on PG) would be enough since others can disrupt it. While a blanket bonus is the least elegant option, its easy to do and does take into account that you still need to change how you approach tasks that are nearly 100% safe in solo. I might see an enemy, so I have to fly and act accordingly because I can never tell for certain. The other is generating a heat map of ship destruction and having a slight bonus for using that system.

Plus Open Powerplay is about opportunism, knowing when a opposition play is useful as to know when to stop them or avoid it- its part of the meta game in what is a non linear / non synchronized conflict. Nothing really runs in exact pairings, and its up to you to find weaknesses in rival powers behaviour. For example sniping is possible by identifying lazy powers, knowing when they do things and working around that to remain undetected as long as possible.

If you want to encourage PvP, then you need to reward the PvP, not the mode. And no, a hauler’s reward for surviving shouldn't be mere survival. That’s the null state, what would happen if there was no opposition at all. They should get a bonus for surviving in the face of opposition.

Robert and I discussed this a few pages back, conceptualizing what such a scheme would look like based on the BGS hooks / player log hooks available. The issue always is the 'win' state is the hauler delivering 100% of its cargo, and the win for an attacker is the kill- but, the hauler does more runs that are successful.

As a player who has little interest in PvP, there is little reason for me to seek out PvP hotspots. And thus my risk is always going to be practically non-existent.

In V2, the dangerous areas will be systems that come under continual UMing due to being hubs for dependent exploited systems- if the defender wants to keep them they have to respond. It will be in these situations where NPC balance will be key so that modes offer similar challenges.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

The "opportunity cost" of flying shieldless is much greater than flying with reasonable shields (and armor) and taking the risks necessary to make your round trips quickly. I'm a Buckyball Racer, and I have a lot of data on my own performance. Here's a quote from me regarding the latest race

While I respect your point for Buckyball stuff, I've got to say, Engaging in a PP hauling run where you may be encountering a gauntlet of players who's intent is to kill you and where you need to push your ship to its limit (Open) vs. a PP Hauling run where you are only going to encounter (compartively) weak NPCs is a very different kettle of fish.

You can safely trundle 800t+ of cargo in the second scenario (potentially with barely using your throttle/stick if you're using one of the various pilot aids), whereas trying that in the face of player adversity is very likely to send you to the rebuy screen.

 

[Rubbernuke]

While I respect your point for Buckyball stuff, I've got to say, Engaging in a PP hauling run where you may be encountering a gauntlet of players who's intent is to kill you and where you need to push your ship to its limit (Open) vs. a PP Hauling run where you are only going to encounter (compartively) weak NPCs is a very different kettle of fish.

You can safely trundle 800t+ of cargo in the second scenario (potentially with barely using your throttle/stick if you're using one of the various pilot aids), whereas trying that in the face of player adversity is very likely to send you to the rebuy screen.

It comes down to time and situation- sometimes players want to get it over with as fast as possible, other times you discover you need to fortify system X 30 minutes before servers tick (because a snipe has been spotted) so you need every cubic inch of cargo space.

 

[Morbad]

For what it's worth, shieldless isn't incompatible with relative safely. Most cargo ships that aren't the Imperial Cutter or Anaconda have a more favorable cargo to protection ratio without shields than with them. Also, the tactics that can work against heavily shielded ships usually fare poorly against heavily armored ones that go silent the moment they drop into the instance, are riddled with PDTs and ECM, and are flown evasively through the FSD cooldown and spool up, until the very moment they have to line up for the wake.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

It comes down to time and situation- sometimes players want to get it over with as fast as possible, other times you discover you need to fortify system X 30 minutes before servers tick (because a snipe has been spotted) so you need every cubic inch of cargo space.

Of course, and that is a situational requirement outside of the normal weekly running I'd imagine, which as we know also has the same issue:

"I've only got 30 minutes to do this job in, for efficiencies purpose, I shall run it in solo/pg to maximise my individual carry capacity and avoid an interdiction. Even better it means there's no need for my wingmate to run top cover for me, so they can now conduct the same run."

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

For what it's worth, shieldless isn't incompatible with relative safely. Most cargo ships that aren't the Imperial Cutter or Anaconda have a more favorable cargo to protection ratio without shields than with them. Also, the tactics that can work against heavily shielded ships usually fare poorly against heavily armored ones that go silent the moment they drop into the instance, are riddled with PDTs and ECM, and are flown evasively through the FSD cooldown and spool up, until the very moment they have to line up for the wake.

While there are techniques as you say that help with running shieldless vs. a player, they tend to be very situational and not something I would put my faith in wholly when getting from A to B in open carrying cargo vs. either those needing wingmates (pre-emptive interdictions) in something bigger, or a reliance on evasion, speed, small silhouette and a modicum of protection (my personal go-to on a daily basis).

 

[Darkfyre99]

While I respect your point for Buckyball stuff, I've got to say, Engaging in a PP hauling run where you may be encountering a gauntlet of players who's intent is to kill you and where you need to push your ship to its limit (Open) vs. a PP Hauling run where you are only going to encounter (compartively) weak NPCs is a very different kettle of fish.

You can safely trundle 800t+ of cargo in the second scenario (potentially with barely using your throttle/stick if you're using one of the various pilot aids), whereas trying that in the face of player adversity is very likely to send you to the rebuy screen.

And I’ve tried the “various pilot aids,” which is one if the metrics I use as a baseline for the “safe” player… the other being the “forum recommended technique.”

And to be quite blunt, running CGs in Open (Or Fortification merits in PowerPlay) in is no different that Buckyball racing. The objective is the same: to get to your destination as quickly as possible. It just so happens, doing in that way greatly reduces both your overall window of vulnerability, and reduces any potential interceptor’s interception solution during the most vulnerable stage of your journey: braking at your destination.

It’s not for nothing that I call those aides (and the most common forum advice in general) “How to waste time and get interdicted repeatedly using this One Weird Trick.”

 

[Jockey79]

I don't think its a case of them going for 'the easiest/cheapest/quickest solution', more a case of their naivety as a design team when it came to multiplayer gaming and the communities that get built around them, leading to them believing everyone would be all 'jumpers for goalposts' when it comes to sportsmanship, rather than picking the meta-path of least resistance.

I'm not sure how much you are aware of the early development, but the game was supposed to come with a single-player offline mode and it wasn't designed as an MMO at all. It was supposed to be just a standard multiplayer game, hence the instancing (at the time, without any tricks being used) would settle around 4 to 8 players if they all had really good connections.

Even then, they shipped the game with certain networking options turned off. This led to people live-streaming the fact there were loads of folks all in one system and not a single player could see another single player - at all. (it was hilarious tbh)

But Frontier did admit the networking choice was (in part) to keep the costs down, as a server-client config would require someone to constantly pay for it.
So I wouldn't call them "naive" at all. Misguided maybe, as they knew what they were doing. But they were not unaware of the consequences of the choice.

I'd be careful using the 'Majority play in Open' quotation (its why I shy away from it in these discussions), as it was suitably vague and off-hand to be open to a lot of interpretation regarding the playerbase, their regularity of play and their activities when playing. There clearly must have been an issue with it regarding powerplay, that you and I don't know about though, otherwise Sandro wouldn't have been discussing with the community about either Open Only PP or Modal Weighted rewards.

See this right here, you're dismissing a quote from David Braben, at the time the CEO of Frontier while name-dropping Sandro a middle manger Dev.
Sandro's comments were just as much throw-away comments, as he even said himself on a live stream after everyone got worked up about OOPP.
In the stream, he clearly pointed out nothing was in the works regarding it and then refused to discuss the topic further.

You cannot keep picking and choosing what quotes you accept and which ones to ignore.

The problem with disconnecting Powerplay from the main galaxy is, from what I understand, that its designed to be another mechanic overlayed (like Thargoids incursions, the BGS and CGs) to try to breathe some life into the 'mile wide, inches deep' complaints folk make regarding Elite Dangerous. Players being able to opt-in/out of the impacts of such systems does not seem to be something Frontier are particularly keen on.

TBH at this point in time I'm just sick of all the people banging on about the mode system.

However Frontier has always promoted the ability to opt in/out of the game's content. So where you got "not keen on", unless it was a typo?

ADDENDUM: Regarding the modal discussions, its important to remember that the people involved in the discussion have changed as time has progressed. In the early days, most Modal discussions came from PMF members or leaders who did not enjoy what they perceived as BGS manipulation in their various 'BGS wars' from the relative safety of a PG or Solo by other rival PMFs (as for them, a robust BGS was for them a metric of measuring success). The reason it has been around so long as a talking point, and discussion points have changed on it over time is because its a very 'broad church' discussion point on the other side of the aisle from yourself.

The clan names may have changed, but a fair few of the player names are the same. And it's the same argument over and over.
It just gets moved from one aspect of the game to another, BGS, CZ, CG, PP.

People knowingly bought the feature for the reason of complaining about it.

That would be fine. Strategic timing is a legitimate and pragmatic risk mitigation strategy. Avoiding the opposition this way doesn't violate the spirit of the competition, and it doesn't rule out direct opposition.

That said, I absolutely agree that a blanket advantage for playing in Open is the wrong kind of incentive and is easily abused, at least without significant modification to the game. It's easy to turn Open into PG or Solo, either with preemptive blocking, or if that is too uncertain, using network rules to reject unwanted peers.

Using the mode system doesn't "violate" anything at all - it was an advertised feature and the Devs said it was a perfectly valid way to play the content.
You can directly oppose people via the game mechanics, which doesn't require a G5 murder boat.

Regading bonuses, although I know Jockey or someone is going to take this as a personal attack, the problem is that the system as it is encourages the behaviours we currently see for the same reason (efficiency), as an open only pilot like myself based on our discussions in the past, you appreciate there is an opportunity cost to flying in open in terms of loadouts, journey times and the ilk which makes its use for Powerplay hauling (on a singular pilot basis, before we get into the multiplication it spirals out from with multiple pilots being involved) unviable. Its why, I suspect, Flash Topic 2 in the day was about weighting the value of PP merits earned or carried in open, which I was very much in favour of.

The fact you are an "open-only" player however is your choice. No one is forcing that on you.
If it is "riskier" for you, then you are choosing to partake in it - for your own personal reasons.

That does not give you the right to mess with other people's choices or game time.

I'd also point out that when I've been in PG's with other players, they tend to fly slower / more casually. The AI are no issue after all.
So I don't think people are zipping from A to B in a hurry (for any reason), the allure of Solo/PG's is you can play at your own pace, not someone else's.
When I am hauling in PP (which isn't very often anymore, granted) in my mate's PG, I'm not rushing around like a headless chicken. So I doubt many others are, a few maybe, but not enough to cause some major game imbalance - I think that's just a PvP boogie man.

As for Sandro and the flash topics - at the time, his boss said no, and his boss's boss said no. They were both around before him and long after him.
It's 2024 now, time to move on from an outdated and irrelevant topic from 2018 that his superiors already stopped.
If someone from Frontier, post COVID wants to throw some information our way (part from PP2.0 isn't going to be OO at launch - a somewhat vauge throw away comment), I'm all ears.

 

[Morbad]

Using the mode system doesn't "violate" anything at all - it was an advertised feature and the Devs said it was a perfectly valid way to play the content.

Many would argue that both the developer's conceptualization of Power Play and it's implementation violate all sorts of things.

No one is arguing that the use of the mode system in Power Play is unintended or against rules, just that it's varying degrees of problematic and undesirable. The entire premise of this thread, and all others like it, is that there is at least the possibility of something better than what is.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

The entire premise of this thread, and all others like it, is that there is at least the possibility of something better than what is.

And there is zero agreement on what better actually is. ED is not perfect as is, but it is a good compromise, as in it offers something to everyone, without giving in to one specific group for everything that only they want.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So I don't think people are zipping from A to B in a hurry (for any reason), the allure of Solo/PG's is you can play at your own pace, not someone else's.

Powerplay is a race against time, and if you are trying to win you respond to the pace of whats happening by default.

Thats why NPC response and efficiency are key issues- V2 will enable a better mix of casual and 'hard core' pacing, but the same will still happen at points of vulnerability- if you want to win strategically you have to do whatever you are doing faster or find ways to stop others directly (such as in Open).

 

[Darkfyre99]

It comes down to time and situation- sometimes players want to get it over with as fast as possible, other times you discover you need to fortify system X 30 minutes before servers tick (because a snipe has been spotted) so you need every cubic inch of cargo space.

One of the advantages of having to wait two hours before I have an opportunity to reply is that it gives me time to realize that I overlooked a constant in my comparisons: how long it takes to fast track merits. Since I’m familiar with how long it takes a Type-9 to do “speed hauling” and I’m using that as baseline for an iCutter (which is quicker), I would’ve said that anything under nine jumps away I’d rather take my chances failing to complete a second run at the cost of 8% cargo capacity, than make a single guaranteed run shieldless.

One interesting thing about your scenario here is that anything over five jumps requires either sacrificing cargo for fuel or a fuel scoop, or making a refueling run, which adds an minimum of four minutes for refueling, and you’ll double that by playing it safe!

The other interesting thing about your scenario here is that it assumes that a Power has so few players that they can’t fortify everything valuable over the course of a week, and that PowerPlay 2.0 will still be a slave of the Thursday deadline. Since you bring up Utopia so often, one time, IIRC, I estimated that it would take me about 60 hours to fortify everything myself…not that I’d ever torture myself that way, let alone have so much free time! Of course, this ignored the amount if time it took to fast track merits, but still!

Since this is a “tug of war” contest, rather than a weekly objective contest, I’m hoping the Thursday tic will only be used for distributing rewards, and actual effects of activities will be calculated much more frequently. I guess all will be revealed in about three weeks.

 

[Jockey79]

One of the advantages of having to wait two hours before I have an opportunity to reply is that it gives me time to realize that I overlooked a constant in my comparisons: how long it takes to fast track merits. Since I’m familiar with how long it takes a Type-9 to do “speed hauling” and I’m using that as baseline for an iCutter (which is quicker), I would’ve said that anything under nine jumps away I’d rather take my chances failing to complete a second run at the cost of 8% cargo capacity, than make a single guaranteed run shieldless.

One interesting thing about your scenario here is that anything over five jumps requires either sacrificing cargo for fuel or a fuel scoop, or making a refueling run, which adds an minimum of four minutes for refueling, and you’ll double that by playing it safe!

The other interesting thing about your scenario here is that it assumes that a Power has so few players that they can’t fortify everything valuable over the course of a week, and that PowerPlay 2.0 will still be a slave of the Thursday deadline. Since you bring up Utopia so often, one time, IIRC, I estimated that it would take me about 60 hours to fortify everything myself…not that I’d ever torture myself that way, let alone have so much free time! Of course, this ignored the amount if time it took to fast track merits, but still!

Since this is a “tug of war” contest, rather than a weekly objective contest, I’m hoping the Thursday tic will only be used for distributing rewards, and actual effects of activities will be calculated much more frequently. I guess all will be revealed in about three weeks.

It is funny how some of these players assume haulers move the same as their combat ships.
All this "speed hauling" rubbish does make me laugh. You can certainly see who has never flown a proper trading hauler - ever.

 

[Darrack]

Since you bring up Utopia so often, one time, IIRC, I estimated that it would take me about 60 hours to fortify everything myself…not that I’d ever torture myself that way

I torture myself!
If im in the bubble like i have been for the past few months i often fortify 10+ systems myself which does show how few players we have here in Utopia.
I use a combat cutter with fighter bay (extra credits for those NPCs) which hauls 640 merits.
Thank the gods for Drews' Lore tour videos to keep me awake!

O7

 

[Rubbernuke]

One of the advantages of having to wait two hours before I have an opportunity to reply is that it gives me time to realize that I overlooked a constant in my comparisons: how long it takes to fast track merits. Since I’m familiar with how long it takes a Type-9 to do “speed hauling” and I’m using that as baseline for an iCutter (which is quicker), I would’ve said that anything under nine jumps away I’d rather take my chances failing to complete a second run at the cost of 8% cargo capacity, than make a single guaranteed run shieldless.

One interesting thing about your scenario here is that anything over five jumps requires either sacrificing cargo for fuel or a fuel scoop, or making a refueling run, which adds an minimum of four minutes for refueling, and you’ll double that by playing it safe!

Panic hauling is pretty much jamming what you have and praying you can make a difference. There were some places that no one wanted to do because they were outposts and far away from the primary star.

The other interesting thing about your scenario here is that it assumes that a Power has so few players that they can’t fortify everything valuable over the course of a week, and that PowerPlay 2.0 will still be a slave of the Thursday deadline. Since you bring up Utopia so often, one time, IIRC, I estimated that it would take me about 60 hours to fortify everything myself…not that I’d ever torture myself that way, let alone have so much free time! Of course, this ignored the amount if time it took to fast track merits, but still!

Since this is a “tug of war” contest, rather than a weekly objective contest, I’m hoping the Thursday tic will only be used for distributing rewards, and actual effects of activities will be calculated much more frequently. I guess all will be revealed in about three weeks.

A lot of powers simply don't fortify unless they have to- depending on how much CC they have they can do the bare minimum.... sometimes 5C do it for them on occasion to get certain places to drop. And remember this is also in addition to open ended prepping races that go on which dump massive amounts of merits, or expansions that eat up time. Many powers in deficit fortify as well to gain CC because if they don't its turmoil.

Many people over the years had programs to automate the 30 minute merit allocation- they'd wake up and haul what they had and fast track the rest.

Since this is a “tug of war” contest, rather than a weekly objective contest, I’m hoping the Thursday tic will only be used for distributing rewards, and actual effects of activities will be calculated much more frequently. I guess all will be revealed in about three weeks.

This was one of my questions that was not answered- in that are the thresholds for exploited to stronghold real time. Rewards certainly are- IIRC on one UI screenshot it has 'rewards delivered in 3 days' visible.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I torture myself!
If im in the bubble like i have been for the past few months i often fortify 10+ systems myself which does show how few players we have here in Utopia.
I use a combat cutter with fighter bay (extra credits for those NPCs) which hauls 640 merits.
Thank the gods for Drews' Lore tour videos to keep me awake!

O7

Things must have gone downhill if you are doing 10 systems. In my time one commander would be responsible for each important system (BGS, fort, scouting) and then played the rest by ear- if you needed to fortify for CC you did what you could.

However I hated the quiche.