Although this annoys me no end that we never got this, it does sound like FD got it right first time......
Powerplay 2 alpha
- Thread starter Agrippa
- Start date
I've seen the previews during that week, and honestly, the aggression of the NPCs was getting to a point that it was just too disruptive.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
They could have just dialled them back a little bit
Medium ground? New here?They could have just dialled them back a little bit
The issue that I can see was that you had capable PP NPCs but also auto-dropping PP NPCs regardless of location. If the more aggressive NPCs were in places that warranted them (strongholds) then I think FD should have kept it like that.
I thought NPCs at Stronghold carriers still shoot on sight ? Whole system could potentially be crippling, especially if a CG happens to be set there.
Heck, even my own carrier shot at a friend this week who was delivering some non PP related cargo, but we happen to be pledged to different powers.
Heck, even my own carrier shot at a friend this week who was delivering some non PP related cargo, but we happen to be pledged to different powers.
Last edited:
I understand people who want PP systems to be more impactful, but I'm afraid the current state is more sensible - especially in regards to more casual players.
As CMDR Numa said, narrative events and CGs would be a nightmare for many people. Imagine what the defense of Sol would have looked like for non-Archer CMDRs. We'd have seen complaints galore.
As CMDR Numa said, narrative events and CGs would be a nightmare for many people. Imagine what the defense of Sol would have looked like for non-Archer CMDRs. We'd have seen complaints galore.
The issue is that no PP system is impactful other than simply grinding out the most effective BGS activity. I'd argue that there (post beta changes) is no PP system that makes people actually know they are pledged- its like 'cool, I'm pledged' and its as if a power is really a glorified faction rather than a power that has 11 other enemies.
There is a sensible middle ground where strongholds live up to the name and that generally capable PP NPCs pop up in logical places. What triggered FDs oveeraction is that they did not recognise this.
All powers are no permanently in conflict, and anywhere outside your power's territory you count as hostile. Player diplomacy behind the scenes handles it a bit differently, but that is the basic premise ingame.
The game doesn't feature diplomacy of any kind between powers or squadrons... it's not even "optional" (unfortunately, but that's it).
The new update, while adding decay, which is good, has skevered the CS rate again and thus harming the actual conflict balancing even more. While I get less merits reinforcing the merit/CS ratio is better than undermining where I get more merits but in terms of CS they are worse. Who balances this? The intern?
Could've had a narrative stating that systems under siege are inviting all defenders, and basically that means Fdev switched off the aggressive pp npcs in that system. Or just tie it to the thargoid bgs states.
That's what happened anyway - any Thargoid state completely revoked both Powerplay control and the ability to reacquire the system while it was in progress.
(To the annoyance of Archer who then had to go around recapturing Sol, etc. afterwards)
Most recent CGs have been specifically Powerplay-themed ones anyway, so Powerplay affecting them would make sense. Non-Powerplay CGs could be placed in non-Powerplay systems.
You could easily have a system that scales PP NPC aggression and capability to your effort, so casuals get minimal pushback while die hard PP supporters get full fat fury.
Has anyone noticed that when you cross the threshold to a higher system level, from exploited to fortified, there is an additional 50% merit deduction?