PLEASE MAKE POWERPLAY IN "OPEN ONLY"

[sandkid]

Unless they're moderately intelligent, in which case, they'll speak up, agreeing where they should, disagreeing where they should, be mindful and mannered, and still vote against the actual faction desires.

Right - which informs you of a 5c element.

Let's be honest, here: even if you had 'total transparency' of every commander vote in some database in-game for all to see - which would tell you who is in the 5c (or just not interested in helping leadership agenda, which isn't the same in intention but the same in actual effect) - there isn't anything you could do about it except mercilessly hunt them. Which you can't if they're in solo (I know, I know - that's the whole point of the OP).

My own opinion is that:

• If 5C movements are as large as presumed to be, even forced to Open Play only they won't be sufficiently restricted or preventable
• If Faction 'Leadership' was less democratic and more performance-based, 5C movements would be less effective / detrimental
• 5C is only an issue because of raw democracy, which is ironic given the majority of the factions are by nature not democratic. Integrating a basic leadership structure that is based not on votes but competitive performance (i.e. in line with the concept of Power Play as a vehicle for legalized PvP and competition) significantly reduces the influence of quantity of commanders as opposed to quality of commanders. This is one of my biggest gripes with the BGS as a whole - what's the point of supporting a minor faction if you have virtually no control over their random and idiotic expansion?
• If Power Play, as a whole, embraced it's PvP nature more it could be balanced around PvP ideals

Keep in mind PvP doesn't necessitate combat - it just represents competition between players. Going off this, the last point looks like so...

• 'Trade PvP' isn't delivering goods within the faction, but delivering goods in competition with another faction. Scrap delivering goods to your own station and replace it with delivering goods to a target, non-controlled station, where each faction competes with the raw availability of commanders to transport.
• 'Exploring PvP' isn't discovery and credits for your faction, it is reaching exploration targets before your competition. Create spawning exploration targets within and without the bubble that requires faction explorers to work together to piece together information and claim CC bonuses.
• 'Combat PvP' can be both direct PvP (which can be in Open or PG) or indirect PvP in the hunting of NPCs (all modes), with the existing emphasis of PvP between players being weighted more to incent this playstyle - hence that's one of the core goals of Power Play: to get players to compete directly as much as possible without infringing on the freedoms of the three login mode types.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If you want

Right - which informs you of a 5c element.

Let's be honest, here: even if you had 'total transparency' of every commander vote in some database in-game for all to see - which would tell you who is in the 5c (or just not interested in helping leadership agenda, which isn't the same in intention but the same in actual effect) - there isn't anything you could do about it except mercilessly hunt them. Which you can't if they're in solo (I know, I know - that's the whole point of the OP).

My own opinion is that:

• If 5C movements are as large as presumed to be, even forced to Open Play only they won't be sufficiently restricted or preventable
• If Faction 'Leadership' was less democratic and more performance-based, 5C movements would be less effective / detrimental
• 5C is only an issue because of raw democracy, which is ironic given the majority of the factions are by nature not democratic. Integrating a basic leadership structure that is based not on votes but competitive performance (i.e. in line with the concept of Power Play as a vehicle for legalized PvP and competition) significantly reduces the influence of quantity of commanders as opposed to quality of commanders. This is one of my biggest gripes with the BGS as a whole - what's the point of supporting a minor faction if you have virtually no control over their random and idiotic expansion?
• If Power Play, as a whole, embraced it's PvP nature more it could be balanced around PvP ideals

Keep in mind PvP doesn't necessitate combat - it just represents competition between players. Going off this, the last point looks like so...

• 'Trade PvP' isn't delivering goods within the faction, but delivering goods in competition with another faction. Scrap delivering goods to your own station and replace it with delivering goods to a target, non-controlled station, where each faction competes with the raw availability of commanders to transport.
• 'Exploring PvP' isn't discovery and credits for your faction, it is reaching exploration targets before your competition. Create spawning exploration targets within and without the bubble that requires faction explorers to work together to piece together information and claim CC bonuses.
• 'Combat PvP' can be both direct PvP (which can be in Open or PG) or indirect PvP in the hunting of NPCs (all modes), with the existing emphasis of PvP between players being weighted more to incent this playstyle - hence that's one of the core goals of Power Play: to get players to compete directly as much as possible without infringing on the freedoms of the three login mode types.

Console owners can have almost unlimited votes. You have multiboxing too. If you are going to build from the ground up you eliminate voting and design something that does not require voting at all. If everything you did only made your power stronger then the only way to oppose is to play properly. It would be simpler to explain and play, and not require any leadership to direct- in fact it would be decentalised to the point where people could go off and do things how they wanted but in the end the power benefits overall.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

If you want


Console owners can have almost unlimited votes. You have multiboxing too. If you are going to build from the ground up you eliminate voting and design something that does not require voting at all. If everything you did only made your power stronger then the only way to oppose is to play properly. It would be simpler to explain and play, and not require any leadership to direct- in fact it would be decentalised to the point where people could go off and do things how they wanted but in the end the power benefits overall.

Herein lies the real problem - we have these powers we want to work for (or against), but we have no means of really exerting any meaningful influence over them. If there isn’t an option for those who are pledged to a power to make their ambitions known, that is, to put forth matters to a vote, then we don’t have a meaningful way to really interact.

Let’s consider the matter of Expansion. Now let’s suppose you’re working for Felicia Winters. There are 4 possible systems into which you could Expand. System A is nice, and will generate some extra Command Capital. So would system B. System C would be break-even, but afford you a chance next week to expand into a very choice system. Finally system D would wind up costing you, but would cut off an opposing faction’s expansion efforts.

So where do you go? Expand at the will of RNGesus and hope you wind up where you want to be? The only alternative I can think of would be to add Missions to the Power Contacts in each system to indicate what, if any, action should be considered for that system, however this too would become subject to both 5C efforts and encourage further bottling.

As long as anyone is able to exert influence, they can exert that influence in a 5C manner. Remove human influence and Power Play becomes as interactive and engaging as GalNet. Make people actually have to engage and do something and they’ll complain it’s “too Grindy” and/or will find ways to automate it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Herein lies the real problem - we have these powers we want to work for (or against), but we have no means of really exerting any meaningful influence over them. If there isn’t an option for those who are pledged to a power to make their ambitions known, that is, to put forth matters to a vote, then we don’t have a meaningful way to really interact.

Let’s consider the matter of Expansion. Now let’s suppose you’re working for Felicia Winters. There are 4 possible systems into which you could Expand. System A is nice, and will generate some extra Command Capital. So would system B. System C would be break-even, but afford you a chance next week to expand into a very choice system. Finally system D would wind up costing you, but would cut off an opposing faction’s expansion efforts.

So where do you go? Expand at the will of RNGesus and hope you wind up where you want to be? The only alternative I can think of would be to add Missions to the Power Contacts in each system to indicate what, if any, action should be considered for that system, however this too would become subject to both 5C efforts and encourage further bottling.

As long as anyone is able to exert influence, they can exert that influence in a 5C manner. Remove human influence and Power Play becomes as interactive and engaging as GalNet. Make people actually have to engage and do something and they’ll complain it’s “too Grindy” and/or will find ways to automate it.

This is why the BGS with sprinkles would be the way to go, and has been the subject of many ideas. This was my last one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/more-powerplay-ideas-mission-based.513569/#post-7827960

In the end you are either tied to the current design and minimse 5C as much as you can, or you get rid of the lot because its been proven to be too flawed.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

This is why the BGS with sprinkles would be the way to go, and has been the subject of many ideas. This was my last one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/more-powerplay-ideas-mission-based.513569/#post-7827960

In the end you are either tied to the current design and minimse 5C as much as you can, or you get rid of the lot because its been proven to be too flawed.

There is something I think people forget in their 5C Fearfest - people joining powers for 5C work are not participating in activities to support the powers they are trying to serve. Even console kiddies with 10k accounts can only manage to play one at a time, and time spent in one account is time not spent in another.

Multiboxers can still only operate one box at a time. Even with a nice VM farm and a network KVM there are only so many actions one person can take at a time.

So these efforts do start to minimize themselves after a while. Best Worse-case scenario I can come up with - a call-center environment with 100 PC’s, and three shifts of paid employees who do nothing but 5C for-hire, 24/7/365.25, minus downtime.

Do you really think these are out there?

Perhaps I should start one. How much would you pay to hire professional 5C’ists to work for your Power?

 

[sandkid]

There is something I think people forget in their 5C Fearfest - people joining powers for 5C work are not participating in activities to support the powers they are trying to serve. Even console kiddies with 10k accounts can only manage to play one at a time, and time spent in one account is time not spent in another.

Multiboxers can still only operate one box at a time. Even with a nice VM farm and a network KVM there are only so many actions one person can take at a time.

So these efforts do start to minimize themselves after a while. Best Worse-case scenario I can come up with - a call-center environment with 100 PC’s, and three shifts of paid employees who do nothing but 5C for-hire, 24/7/365.25, minus downtime.

Do you really think these are out there?

Perhaps I should start one. How much would you pay to hire professional 5C’ists to work for your Power?

This is why I proposed the Emmissaries idea - if you could more or less guarantee the top three systems would be decided by leadership, who have been placed there by sheer performance (as rubbernuke effectively wants), would that not be enough to shave off 5C to an acceptable point?

Alternatively (or collectively), don't remove voting but instead shift its importance in the overall movements of a Power. We're talking a pretty stout overhaul, but what if CC generation and expenditure was primarily driven by active commanders rather than on their numbers of votes? There's a lot of ways to potentially do this, but consider this:

• You can cast a vote once pledged (that doesn't change - so unlimited accounts still in play)
• To cast a vote costs merits or some similar currency that must be actively acquired
• The amount of merits required to cast a single vote is balanced around ~12 hours of gameplay or more
• Higher ranks can cast more votes for less merits (highly active accounts outpace lower 'massed' accounts)

Now you've created a system where botting is effectively necessary to 'game the system' with multiple accounts - an action Frontier can easily detect and prevent. 5C elements still exist - allowing minor political intrigue - but it is restricted to highly active commanders, representative of their right to dedicate time sabotaging a power at the expense of not being able to easily support one simultaneously. A highly dedicated player might manage a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of highly active commanders, but most players won't put in that kind of effort and...even if they did...we'd see a larger balancing take place across all factions.

Thoughts?

 

[Rubbernuke]

There is something I think people forget in their 5C Fearfest

Its not fear at all. Nearly every power has either been turned inside out or been subjected to prolonged 5C that takes huge amounts of time, patience and money to correct. Trust me when I say it has been bad and not something to court further. Just look back in Discord or Reddit histories to see it in action.

- people joining powers for 5C work are not participating in activities to support the powers they are trying to serve. Even console kiddies with 10k accounts can only manage to play one at a time, and time spent in one account is time not spent in another.

Thats not the issue. Console owners can vote for a power one at a time, and after 16 weeks have 5 times the voting power doing nothing.

Multiboxers can still only operate one box at a time. Even with a nice VM farm and a network KVM there are only so many actions one person can take at a time.

Multiboxers can in effect have one 'prime' account which is what they really want, and have multiple others to simply mess up other powers.

So these efforts do start to minimize themselves after a while. Best Worse-case scenario I can come up with - a call-center environment with 100 PC’s, and three shifts of paid employees who do nothing but 5C for-hire, 24/7/365.25, minus downtime.

AFK PG turretboats can produce on paper 168000 merits a week each running 24 hours a day- so multiply that by 4 and then by however many wings a group could do.

Do you really think these are out there?

Yes, or at least people rampantly exploiting.

Perhaps I should start one. How much would you pay to hire professional 5C’ists to work for your Power?

I know you think this is funny, but its not. 5C has ruined PP for many.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This is why I proposed the Emmissaries idea - if you could more or less guarantee the top three systems would be decided by leadership, who have been placed there by sheer performance (as rubbernuke effectively wants), would that not be enough to shave off 5C to an acceptable point?

Alternatively (or collectively), don't remove voting but instead shift its importance in the overall movements of a Power. We're talking a pretty stout overhaul, but what if CC generation and expenditure was primarily driven by active commanders rather than on their numbers of votes? There's a lot of ways to potentially do this, but consider this:

• You can cast a vote once pledged (that doesn't change - so unlimited accounts still in play)
• To cast a vote costs merits or some similar currency that must be actively acquired
• The amount of merits required to cast a single vote is balanced around ~12 hours of gameplay or more
• Higher ranks can cast more votes for less merits (highly active accounts outpace lower 'massed' accounts)

Now you've created a system where botting is effectively necessary to 'game the system' with multiple accounts - an action Frontier can easily detect and prevent. 5C elements still exist - allowing minor political intrigue - but it is restricted to highly active commanders, representative of their right to dedicate time sabotaging a power at the expense of not being able to easily support one simultaneously. A highly dedicated player might manage a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of highly active commanders, but most players won't put in that kind of effort and...even if they did...we'd see a larger balancing take place across all factions.

Thoughts?

Again this is naive thinking. Just remove votes and just let players get on with a spaceship simulator.

 

[sandkid]

Again this is naive thinking. Just remove votes and just let players get on with a spaceship simulator.

If all you want is a spaceship simulator, remove Power Play and start developing the actual simulator. =)

 

[Rubbernuke]

If all you want is a spaceship simulator, remove Power Play and start developing the actual simulator. =)

I've been with Powerplay since day 2, I've been in leadership of one power and involved with nearly every other. I know how 5C works, I've seen hundreds of cycles of it in action. Trust me when I say I know what 5C do and what would stop them.

 

[sandkid]

I've been with Powerplay since day 2, I've been in leadership of one power and involved with nearly every other. I know how 5C works, I've seen hundreds of cycles of it in action. Trust me when I say I know what 5C do and what would stop them.

That you've been involved since Day 2 implies your suggestions have fallen on deaf ears - granted, that's how it is for most of us. I can only imagine how folks sticking with CQC since Day 2 feel. They've not even been acknowledged! At least you guys got a 'Hey we're thinking about this change and...crickets'

But it's the thought that counts, right?

The entirety of the argument for 'We gotta stop 5C' boils down to a simple (but important) gripe:
- Account quantity, not quality, dictates how Powers interact and compete

Any change made to Power Play that doesn't address account quantity is more important than account quality won't have any effect on 5C. Unhealthy 5C is driven by quantity. Healthy 5C (yes, there is such a thing - play EVE Online, it's full of it) is driven by account quality. You can remove sabotage gameplay - lots of games don't have it to begin with, because most folks definition of 'fun' PvP doesn't involve intuitive competition so much as bean counting - which, consequently, tends to be driven by account quantity not quality. But you can remove sabotage, and thus the premise of 5C - but you won't have addressed the underlying issue: mass numbers of accounts.

If you're not prepared to fight against quality spies and saboteurs, you're not qualified to lead. The hardest part about being on the losing side is recognizing you're losing and lack the skill to win. 5C is a hot-button topic because you're not losing to skill, just raw numbers. That sucks. Hard. You can remove voting, go for it! But you still have to have a system in place that allows the selection of target systems that allows for commander choice. Set it up in missions, and you'll lose the 'vote' through raw numbers completing missions over you - that's why the BGS is so screwed up, and that isn't even a 5C problem, just a bean-counting problem!

You must either set the bar high enough that only dedicated quality accounts can affect change on a Faction, or you must accept that 5C will always be present because it exists whenever quantity determines the outcome. And when you do this, you must also accept that if the quality accounts of the enemy outnumber you - you have lost. It ceases to be a competition if you don't allow for the fact that numbers will prevail even with quality standards rather than quantity standards. It's that, or give every commander their own faction to fight for that allows only one commander (themselves) to fight. There's your fair fight.

5C isn't your actual problem - it's a symptom of the problem: raw account quantity (which can be easily abused) dictates Power Play movement, not account quality (which cannot be easily abused).

 

[Rubbernuke]

That you've been involved since Day 2 implies your suggestions have fallen on deaf ears - granted, that's how it is for most of us. I can only imagine how folks sticking with CQC since Day 2 feel. They've not even been acknowledged! At least you guys got a 'Hey we're thinking about this change and...crickets'

Because nearly every change FD have suggested or done is to fight 5C with...more voting. Consolidation....more voting. Proposal.....more voting. Voting in any shape or form does not work. Its a failed design that assumes no-one is going to act dishonestly and vote for crap week in, week out.

The entirety of the argument for 'We gotta stop 5C' boils down to a simple (but important) gripe:
- Account quantity, not quality, dictates how Powers interact and compete

No, this still assumes people will act honestly. Any system has to assume the worst.

Any change made to Power Play that doesn't address account quantity is more important than account quality won't have any effect on 5C. Unhealthy 5C is driven by quantity. Healthy 5C (yes, there is such a thing - play EVE Online, it's full of it) is driven by account quality. You can remove sabotage gameplay - lots of games don't have it to begin with, because most folks definition of 'fun' PvP doesn't involve intuitive competition so much as bean counting - which, consequently, tends to be driven by account quantity not quality. But you can remove sabotage, and thus the premise of 5C - but you won't have addressed the underlying issue: mass numbers of accounts.

And as I posted before, an idea about spying that involves skill, does not screw up voting (because there is none) and is tactically important.

If you're not prepared to fight against quality spies and saboteurs you're not qualified to lead.

'Quality spies and saboteurs' in PP tick a box and walk off. Quality indeed. I'll just buy myself a console and fight back.

The hardest part about being on the losing side is recognizing you're losing and lack the skill to win. 5C is a hot-button topic because you're not losing to skill, just raw numbers. That sucks. Hard. You can remove voting, go for it! But you still have to have a system in place that allows the selection of target systems that allows for commander choice. Set it up in missions, and you'll lose the 'vote' through raw numbers completing missions over you - that's why the BGS is so screwed up, and that isn't even a 5C problem, just a bean-counting problem!

If you read my proposal, expansions are blind and have no value- thats its strength compared to PP. You could make a selection feature but because each expansion has no CC cost attached no move is bad. Player choice is only an issue now because the current model has it. A BGS model that counts the amount of controlled systems would not need selection- players could then expand from where they wanted, and develop their own part of that power independently and not require leadership or guidance, a bit like a franchise. Then its a simple calculation- who runs more systems?

So 5C can expand to Maia or Colonia because it won't matter. Then PP becomes a game about playing to win and expanding rather than ticking the right box.

You must either set the bar high enough that only dedicated quality accounts can affect change on a Faction, or you must accept that 5C will always be present because it exists whenever quantity determines the outcome. And when you do this, you must also accept that if the quality accounts of the enemy outnumber you - you have lost. It ceases to be a competition if you don't allow for the fact that numbers will prevail even with quality standards rather than quantity standards. It's that, or give every commander their own faction to fight for that allows only one commander (themselves) to fight. There's your fair fight.

Which is a massive mess that assumes too much. Systems need to be simple and robust, and assume a player wants to 5C. Systems like the BGS are simple and just allow you to play, and through that play your Power grows. More importantly they are much harder to 5C because its easier to oppose using another faction. Then your quality comes in because its then down to gameplay.

5C isn't your actual problem - it's a symptom of the problem: raw account quantity (which can be easily abused) dictates Power Play movement, not account quality (which cannot be easily abused).

5C is people wanting to win at any cost, using exploitable mechanics with cheap accounts. What you suggest is just not feasible, especially when the BGS has all the answers already staring us in the face. The BGS by design (making positive actions count far more than failing missions that loses rep / inf) is anti 5C.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Its not fear at all. Nearly every power has either been turned inside out or been subjected to prolonged 5C that takes huge amounts of time, patience and money to correct. Trust me when I say it has been bad and not something to court further. Just look back in Discord or Reddit histories to see it in action.

I'd quit the internet before I looked at reddit. reddit is where things go when 4chan flushes. As for Discord.. I would say a good 80% of the time the Discord channels I've joined have been absolutely dead, or people are posting pictures of other games, their feet, stacks of empty soda cans, and maybe, just maybe, once in a while, someone will actually mention something about fortifying a particular system.

Multiboxers can in effect have one 'prime' account which is what they really want, and have multiple others to simply mess up other powers.

But they still need to put in some time to maintain at least a minimal status, and that's time not on their "prime" accounts.

AFK PG turretboats can produce on paper 168000 merits a week each running 24 hours a day- so multiply that by 4 and then by however many wings a group could do.

Which translates into a pittance of credits. Merits alone aren't really worth much.

Yes, or at least people rampantly exploiting.

Since this has happened to nearly every power, we must assume it is continuing to happen to every power, including the powers you oppose. If this is the case, it's likely safe to assume this is happening to all powers at the same time, which means, at the end of the day, all those efforts are essentially balancing each other out.

I know you think this is funny, but its not. 5C has ruined PP for many.

I don't think it's funny. But I do think it may be a viable business model. Admittedly I am still a bit miffed that Ashely Madison beat me to the punch for setting up a website for adults to have affairs, so I'm trying to capitalize on the next big "thing".

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'd quit the internet before I looked at reddit. reddit is where things go when 4chan flushes. As for Discord.. I would say a good 80% of the time the Discord channels I've joined have been absolutely dead, or people are posting pictures of other games, their feet, stacks of empty soda cans, and maybe, just maybe, once in a while, someone will actually mention something about fortifying a particular system.

And the ones I have access to are the opposite, having properly set up channels for OT talk, UM, forting etc. For 2 years straight I ran the Utopian Reddit and helped with the Discord. I can't vouch much for ZYADA but for the rest they are run properly.

But they still need to put in some time to maintain at least a minimal status, and that's time not on their "prime" accounts.

People use them like changing hats. Its not a matter of time but a way for them to pick up materials and cause havoc.

Which translates into a pittance of credits. Merits alone aren't really worth much.

Its never been about the merit return, its about dropping hundreds of thousands of merits in a snipe bomb to either oppose or win an expansion.

Since this has happened to nearly every power, we must assume it is continuing to happen to every power, including the powers you oppose. If this is the case, it's likely safe to assume this is happening to all powers at the same time, which means, at the end of the day, all those efforts are essentially balancing each other out.

Again this is not correct. 5C is not consistent in scope or ultimate merit counts across powers. Some weeks it will focus on one power, other times it will be low level, others it will stop.

 

[sandkid]

No, this still assumes people will act honestly. Any system has to assume the worst.

...

If you read my proposal, expansions are blind and have no value- thats its strength compared to PP. You could make a selection feature but because each expansion has no CC cost attached no move is bad. Player choice is only an issue now because the current model has it. A BGS model that counts the amount of controlled systems would not need selection- players could then expand from where they wanted, and develop their own part of that power independently and not require leadership or guidance, a bit like a franchise. Then its a simple calculation- who runs more systems?

...

Which is a massive mess that assumes too much. Systems need to be simple and robust, and assume a player wants to 5C. Systems like the BGS are simple and just allow you to play, and through that play your Power grows. More importantly they are much harder to 5C because its easier to oppose using another faction. Then your quality comes in because its then down to gameplay.

5C is people wanting to win at any cost, using exploitable mechanics with cheap accounts. What you suggest is just not feasible, especially when the BGS has all the answers already staring us in the face. The BGS by design (making positive actions count far more than failing missions that loses rep / inf) is anti 5C.

First: the system doesn't need to assume people act dishonestly - that's a given. Second: you're still missing the point at the bottom of that post - that 5C is a symptom of an underlying problem of account quantity. Allow me to lay out your idea for you (it's not a bad one, it just won't have the effect you think it will)

So you go to a raw points competition - no voting, no ability to make 'bad moves' because all moves are good moves. This isn't a terrible suggestion, really! Lots of games employ a similar model. You've eliminated 5C because you can't actually 'sabotage' a power. Right? Well...not quite. Instead of incenting sabotage, you've incented zerging. Different execution styles, same effect: you're losing to bean-counting, not skill.

If the calculation is just 'who runs more systems' - and we have free expansion to wherever players want to work - that sounds great for an independent squadron, or even a solo commander who just wants to 'do their part' in their piece of the galaxy. However, Power Play is a competition. Eventually, powers collide on systems to fight for control. Working as intended. The system goes to whoever puts in the most effort to maintain it.

Until you use mass accounts for your power.
You don't need 5C if you can use mass accounts for your side.
You literally flipped a polarity switch - instead of mass negative outcomes for you, you just changed it to mass positives for them.

Let me be clear: your idea isn't awful, it's employed and successful in multiple franchises but it requires the developer to create standards to prevent mass accounts being effective. You still have the quantity vs quality problem: all you did was switch which side it was happening on, but you're still losing to raw numbers, not skill. You still have to build a standard of measure that requires quality accounts to make a difference.

Go 'only positive Power Play' - that works. Really! But if you don't solve the quantity problem, you'll be back here in the forums complaining about multiboxing again. Because it shouldn't matter if you own lots of accounts. It isn't fair that a schmuck who wants to blow the cash and time on a multibox setup gets to ruin your day without even actually playing against you. I 100% agree with that sentiment. I ran multiple accounts on EVE Online, but I had to actually pilot those accounts to make them effective. Today, CCP has made many poor choices that have resulted in multiple accounts running rampant...but that's just cash in their pocket, so who cares?

Voting is not your problem - you can nix it, really, but it won't solve the actual problem you're experiencing.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

And the ones I have access to are the opposite, having properly set up channels for OT talk, UM, forting etc. For 2 years straight I ran the Utopian Reddit and helped with the Discord. I can't vouch much for ZYADA but for the rest they are run properly.

Perhaps this is a big part of the problem - too many different people making use of too many different “Official” sites and chat for anyone to keep track of or know what’s going on, especially since anyone can start up a Discord or rubbish /site/ and declare themselves “the leader”, when in real reality no one is actually in charge. You may have worked for Hudson since day 2, but you are not Zach Hudson, and don’t really speak for him. (Not a personal “you”, but applicable to everyone who says they’re in charge.) I’ll come back to this.

People use them like changing hats. Its not a matter of time but a way for them to pick up materials and cause havoc.

If it were only about materials this would be quite simple to fix - you simply limit the number of merits per day, per player, per location.

Its never been about the merit return, its about dropping hundreds of thousands of merits in a snipe bomb to either oppose or win an expansion.

I can’t see how this could work. Can I do something with my Merits other than increase my standing each week, and make some credits based on how many I had, prior to them being halved? Is there some Merit Broker I don’t know about? Sure, there is some coronation between merits earned and stations fortified or undermining done, but this isn’t quite the same.

Again this is not correct. 5C is not consistent in scope or ultimate merit counts across powers. Some weeks it will focus on one power, other times it will be low level, others it will stop.

This sounds very different from when you said:

Its not fear at all. Nearly every power has either been turned inside out or been subjected to prolonged 5C that takes huge amounts of time, patience and money to correct. Trust me when I say it has been bad and not something to court further. Just look back in Discord or Reddit histories to see it in action.

So either all the powers are in shambles, or they’re not. Either everyone is spending all their time recovering or they’re not. If it’s cyclic, periodic and only happening in isolated cases, then it’s not a rampant problem threatening the very fabric of the multiverse.

And this brings me back to the matter of Who’s In Charge. Who made you the Leader? How do you know that those you lead actually want or need your leadership? Perhaps what you call 5C is actually the result of your followers following the orders of the “real” leader instead.

Can you see what the problem is here yet? You’ve got people trying to Power Play like Power Play is Elite: Guildwars. It’s not. Your claim to a title of leadership isn’t worth the pixels it’s made up of, since you have no actual power to DO ANYTHING. Your vote is worth no more or less than anyone else’s, you can’t eject anyone from their pledge, because who pledges or doesn’t isn’t up to you, because you lead nothing. (Again, not a personal “you”).

This is one of those unique Elite-isms - no one is in charge of anything. Even as Power Players, we’re all still just little cogs in much bigger wheels. It was designed that way, and I suspect for good reason. I know from my own experiences in other games where groups of players have players as leaders that those leaders can easily ruin the experience for other players, intentionally or otherwise. We can’t have those kinds of problems here because no one is in charge of anything but themselves.

Now we do have Squadrons these days, to give those who feel like they have to lead something the illusion of importance, but look how long we’ve got on without them and how little they’ve actually changed anything.

In this particular case it’s not a problem of game mechanics, but a problem of people and misconceptions, of trying to do things like they do in other games and it just doesn’t work here. And what do people do? They come to the forums here and cry about how things aren’t how they are in every other game and demand they be changed to make them like every other game, because why should they have to adapt?

 

[Arkadi]

And this brings me back to the matter of Who’s In Charge. Who made you the Leader? How do you know that those you lead actually want or need your leadership? Perhaps what you call 5C is actually the result of your followers following the orders of the “real” leader instead.

You can play this game online. Countless playergroups have formed around Elite Dangerous. There are some very active groups around powerplay since powerplay started. People crowded together, formed groups, first on reddit, later on discords. And it's a thing of group dynamics - each of those groups found some people who were willing and able to step up as "leaders". Some have proven themselves able and stayd prominent in powerplay, some stepped down again, because time-investment was to big or social skills or game-understanding were lacking, or countless other reasons. That's the way things go with gaming communities.

I don't really know what's your problem with commanders reknown for theire knowledge and experience with powerplay. Poeple who are willing to invest time and thought into the hobby of maintaining a online-gaming-community. Again, group-dynamics are taking care of which groups stay alive and healthy. It tends to be those groups who have dedicated persons who have time, knowledge about the game and communication-tools and the ability and will to "lead" or in other words "care" for a gaming-community.

 

[Goose4291]

I can’t see how this could work. Can I do something with my Merits other than increase my standing each week, and make some credits based on how many I had, prior to them being halved? Is there some Merit Broker I don’t know about? Sure, there is some coronation between merits earned and stations fortified or undermining done, but this isn’t quite the same.

It's comments like this which show your absolute inexperience with the multiplayer mechanics of Elite, and in particular powerplay.

For example you could 'merit bomb' (which I'll explain, as I imagine you have no idea how this sort of gameplay works)

You chose a system. Went to it in PG/Solo and undermined the hell out of it (So by yourself you could drop the place into the double CC Cost if not foritfied state).
You're colleagues did the same.

You spend the next week in solo/PG (where the NPCs have the capabilities of a wingless, beakless declawed sparrow with asthma to kill you) and you waited. Perhaps did some fortification of your systems, or whatever counted as regular risk free gameplay for you.

In the closing hour of the week before the powerplay 'tick' you and your mates cash in the undermining merits accrued for your respective systems.

At this point these systems now cost their owning powers double CC if they haven't fortified them, or regular CC costs if they have. Up until you drop off those merits, they have no idea the systems even been targeted. Congratulations, you've thrown that power into turmoil.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

It's comments like this which show your absolute inexperience with the multiplayer mechanics of Elite, and in particular powerplay.

For example you could 'merit bomb' (which I'll explain, as I imagine you have no idea how this sort of gameplay works)

You chose a system. Went to it in PG/Solo and undermined the hell out of it (So by yourself you could drop the place into the double CC Cost if not foritfied state).
You're colleagues did the same.

You spend the next week in solo/PG (where the NPCs have the capabilities of a wingless, beakless declawed sparrow with asthma to kill you) and you waited. Perhaps did some fortification of your systems, or whatever counted as regular risk free gameplay for you.

In the closing hour of the week before the powerplay 'tick' you and your mates cash in the undermining merits accrued for your respective systems.

At this point these systems now cost their owning powers double CC if they haven't fortified them, or regular CC costs if they have. Up until you drop off those merits, they have no idea the systems even been targeted. Congratulations, you've thrown that power into turmoil.

Not sure if it was your intent to sound like a self-righteous and pompous unit, or just poor word choices here, but what I take from this is basically “Don’t cash in any of your undermining bonds from blowing up NPC’s until 5 minutes before the update tick on Thursday’s.”, aka, exploit game mechanics.

Since this clearly is exploitation of the mechanic, a simple solution would be to put an expiration timer on these, say of, one hour, to keep exploiters from hoarding them.

 

[Goose4291]

Not sure if it was your intent to sound like a self-righteous and pompous unit, or just poor word choices here, but what I take from this is basically “Don’t cash in any of your undermining bonds from blowing up NPC’s until 5 minutes before the update tick on Thursday’s.”, aka, exploit game mechanics.

Since this clearly is exploitation of the mechanic, a simple solution would be to put an expiration timer on these, say of, one hour, to keep exploiters from hoarding them.

I find that particularly rich coming from someone who takes every opportunity to look down at the various Elite (and in this case powerplay) subreddits and their users in such a manner, and discount someones post if they mention them in some manner. I've just outlined one of these issues with merits in a manner that makes the process for you clear, so you have at least an understanding one of the issues before sneering again like you always do, in every thread, at organised group play in ED.

As to your suggestion, if you actually read those horrid toxic reddits you regularly post about how much you dislike (you know... where the users actually play powerplay), you'd know that's one of the things that occasionally gets floated as a suggested fix for that issue.