[POWERPLAY] Disable all autopilot features when pledged (existing and incoming April update)

[-VR- Max Factor]

I'd love nothing better than a reveamp of Powerplay!

What a lot of people here fear is that this in game feature is superior to what botters currently use, and make the difficulty ceiling for making bots lower encouraging wider adoption.

Saying that, judging by the docking computers error rate in the past it might be a great Trojan Horse if botters did use it

It may well be easier. I think I said that in my original post. I just don't think it will make that big a difference to what it's currently like now.

All you are doing is hampering the innocent people who want to use this. I might fit supercruise assist when I go exploring so that when I have a long supercruise journey, I can put that on and go and get a drink, have a crap etc without worry, but to do that I would have to unpledge from my PP power. I don't think that's the right way to go about it myself.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It may well be easier. I think I said that in my original post. I just don't think it will make that big a difference to what it's currently like now.

All you are doing is hampering the innocent people who want to use this. I might fit supercruise assist when I go exploring so that when I have a long supercruise journey, I can put that on and go and get a drink, have a crap etc without worry, but to do that I would have to unpledge from my PP power. I don't think that's the right way to go about it myself.

Its a fair point, I think in reality this thread hopefully will make FD take botting more seriously (or highlight it again). I know Will posted FDs stance, but from what people who monitor botting say the punishments are very lenient. Plus if this feature is to become bread and butter in ED, they (FD) need to ensure features like Powerplay don't suffer from them.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Problem is that there's great discrepancy between Frontier statements about botting and game reality. I proposed in another thread some systems to monitor continuously:

Hello fellow Powerplayers,

I think that, meanwhile we wait for news of improvements about Powerplay like we'd wait for some kind of modern day Godot, we should at least ask the developers for a regular monitoring about some sensitive systems.

Bots have always been a real problem to Powerplay and I really do not want to talk about who's botting right now or who botted whom in the past, but I just want to find a solution about this phenomenon which, I remember you all, is esplicitally forbidden by the EULA of the game.

So I suggest to make a reasonable list of sensitive systems to propose to FDev for continuous monitoring.

HQ Systems
Reason? You can inbound or outbound fortify, but you'll end up in your Headquarters and bots will have to do the same. Same goes for 5C-bots, that keep fortifying bad systems, especially during massive turmoil attempts (as we saw recently). I don't want to talk about 5C in particular, any kind of bot-hauling is bad, even bot-fortifying. The systems are the following:

• Clayakarma
• Cubeo
• Eotienses
• Gateway
• Harma
• Kamadhenu
• Lembava
• Nanomam
• Polevnic
• Rhea
• Synteini

If you think about it it's just 11 systems and this would probably solve a lot by itself, but we can do more, much more.

Expansions
Any kind of expansion: both good and "bad" expansions, for hauling and combat Powers too. We've got combat bots too, you know.

Preparations
Not every single preparation of course, I'd say we can consider every preparation that reach a 30,000 merits quota suspicious.

Why should Frontier Developments listen to this request (and how should they treat irregular accounts)
I am for a zero tolerance way of dealing with irregular accounts: perma-ban and let's forget about them. Did they pay? Well, so did I and all the honest players, was my money less valuable? I don't think so.
Bots and cheats are strictly forbidden by the EULA, the fact that Frontier Developments tolerate this kind of behaviour is an insult to all the other honest players.
This is something worth to invest in, considering that in time people will stop using bots because the risk is too high, even if the game is in sale very often money is money, especially wasted money (yeah, I'm talking about secondary accounts, a lot of them).

If you have got in mind any other sensitive target please share, and most importantly let's try to find a way to let our voice listened, we can improve this game together, and the Developers obviously need us players to understand where this kind of behaviour can be most frequently found.

I'm positive that if Frontier will take the matter seriously and most importantly ban permanently the accounts found guilty of botting the game will be for the better.
But I think that Rubbernuke is trying to point out a different matter, and I agree with him: these new modules will make bots much easier to program (considering that most of the job will be already done by the game itself) and much more difficult to spot by the anti-cheat team.
So to counter this that's an actual problem of these new modules (which I've got nothing against to) we expect from FDev to do more against botting, because right now it's celarly not enough, the very fact the problem is already there is proof of that.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Powerplay relies on big ships, lots of money and lots of skill.

In Powerplay, a decent ship is a large ship, something you have forgotten as a BGS manipulation player it seems.

Grind and modes have inflated the amounts of work required in Powerplay to the point where only large ships make a perceptible difference. A Hauler can move 18 cargo a time. A Cutter and T-9 700+. An unfavourable system can have triggers upward of 10,000. If Sandros proposal goes through with uncapped fortification, the totals will go up and up. How does a player feel in a Hauler looking at a field of numbers knowing they could haul 100 merits for very little reward? How is that being effective? Is that enjoyable?

To be efficient in PP combat you need a powerful ship thats strong and the skills to use it. You can quite happily undermine or expand in a Cobra, but thats not going to last against 6 PP NPCs at a Nav, and if you are sensible you'll be running away often. Again, when numbers inflate to the millions how does that make someone not familiar with Powerplay feel?

And that does not even include fighting other players. In an Open combat expansion how would a Cobra deal with an FdL? A '1337 PvPer' as you so quaintly put it, will wipe the floor with anyone not their equal in skill or ship. So again, participating is not the same as seeing yourself progress and make a visbile difference based on the time you put in.

So sure, you can participate. Beginners find PP difficult because they lack the means to do the tasks either via money ships and skills based on the time they can spend. Those in the middle might have some of those, but they might look at the 'reward' for the time spent and wonder 'why am I doing this?'. Hence advanced players have the money, ships, skill to make an enjoyable difference to Powerplay and why I said the feature was 'end game'.

If one wishes to maximize their efficiency, what you wrote above is true. But here's the thing: not everyone are hypercompetitive players. Heck, look at the players who preferentially get their merits in open combat. This is wastefully inefficient! Not only are they risking the merits they gather by engaging in PvP, but the time they spend PvPing would be better spent grinding more merits. And if they're not gathering merits while there, and just wait around for an enemy player to show up, they're being even more inefficient!

And I have no problem with that. This is a game played for fun, not a second job. As long as they're having fun, I don't frelling care how efficient or inefficient someone is. Every little bit helps. The player in that Hauler, merrily carrying 20 tons at a time, might not move the numbers as fast as a Cutter or T9, but if they like that kind of thing, they'll be in a larger ship soon enough. In the meantime, what they're hauling could mean that one of the Type 9 pilots won't have to make an extra side trip to finish fortification. The player interdicting NPCs in a Cobra in a control system, rather than grinding away at Nav Points or combat zones, is still moving the needle. And if they like that kind of thing, they'll be in a larger ship soon enough.

Telling players that they can't participate unless they play exactly as you demand that they play, is not going to grow the Powerplayerbase. If you insist that players who aren't 1337 PvPers shouldn't play Powerplay, then you won't be getting a lot players in Powerplay. If you tell players curious about Powerplay, "go hyper-efficient, or go home," they will. If you discourage players from participating in Powerplay in ways they find fun, then when Frontier looks at player engagement, they'll think, "It'll be a waste of time to further develop that feature."

So no, players don't need a big ship to participate in Powerplay. All they need is a ship that they consider fun to fly, and is good enough at the job that they want to do that they don't feel frustration. If that's a Type-9, great. If that's a Hauler, that's also great. If that's any ship in between those two extremes, that's great as well. It's all good.

And no, player's don't need a lot of money. If a player wants to trade along the way to the system that control's their "home" system, so that the next allotment of fortification cargo is waiting for them, they're more than welcome to it. Every little bit helps, and that allotment size will grow as they slowly rank up. It's all good.

And no, player's don't need lots of skills. As long as they're having fun, and not getting frustrated by their failures, then they'll get better soon enough. It's all good.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

If one wishes to maximize their efficiency, what you wrote above is true. But here's the thing: not everyone are hypercompetitive players. Heck, look at the players who preferentially get their merits in open combat. This is wastefully inefficient! Not only are they risking the merits they gather by engaging in PvP, but the time they spend PvPing would be better spent grinding more merits. And if they're not gathering merits while there, and just wait around for an enemy player to show up, they're being even more inefficient!

And I have no problem with that. This is a game played for fun, not a second job. As long as they're having fun, I don't frelling care how efficient or inefficient someone is. Every little bit helps. The player in that Hauler, merrily carrying 20 tons at a time, might not move the numbers as fast as a Cutter or T9, but if they like that kind of thing, they'll be in a larger ship soon enough. In the meantime, what they're hauling could mean that one of the Type 9 pilots won't have to make an extra side trip to finish fortification. The player interdicting NPCs in a Cobra in a control system, rather than grinding away at Nav Points or combat zones, is still moving the needle. And if they like that kind of thing, they'll be in a larger ship soon enough.

Telling players that they can't participate unless they play exactly as you demand that they play, is not going to grow the Powerplayerbase. If you insist that players who aren't 1337 PvPers shouldn't play Powerplay, then you won't be getting a lot players in Powerplay. If you tell players curious about Powerplay, "go hyper-efficient, or go home," they will. If you discourage players from participating in Powerplay in ways they find fun, then when Frontier looks at player engagement, they'll think, "It'll be a waste of time to further develop that feature."

So no, players don't need a big ship to participate in Powerplay. All they need is a ship that they consider fun to fly, and is good enough at the job that they want to do that they don't feel frustration. If that's a Type-9, great. If that's a Hauler, that's also great. If that's any ship in between those two extremes, that's great as well. It's all good.

And no, player's don't need a lot of money. If a player wants to trade along the way to the system that control's their "home" system, so that the next allotment of fortification cargo is waiting for them, they're more than welcome to it. Every little bit helps, and that allotment size will grow as they slowly rank up. It's all good.

And no, player's don't need lots of skills. As long as they're having fun, and not getting frustrated by their failures, then they'll get better soon enough. It's all good.

Aren't we going a little bit offtopic in this thread too? I mean... I'm ok with talking about how Powerplay should be considered, but we're basically saying the same things in three (or four?) different threads, going offtopic in every single thread.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Aren't we going a little bit offtopic in this thread too? I mean... I'm ok with talking about how Powerplay should be considered, but we're basically saying the same things in three (or four?) different threads, going offtopic in every single thread.

Yes we are. I'm just responding to Rubberduke's insistence that only a certain type of player is welcome to participate in Powerplay, a stance that I don't agree with. If he doesn't bring it up, I won't respond to it.

edit: and heck, I still think his OP is a good idea, modified so that it's disabled only when carrying merits.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Yes we are. I'm just responding to Rubberduke's insistence that only a certain type of player is welcome to participate in Powerplay, a stance that I don't agree with. If he doesn't bring it up, I won't respond to it.

Well I think you misunderstood again. For example: thargoids are not easy. Every player can play against thargoids, but if you go against them unprepared you simply have to run away or die trying. Why Powerplay should be different? Why everybody should be able to achieve their goals? It's not about being "welcome" or not, it's about managing the possible failure.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Well I think you misunderstood again. For example: thargoids are not easy. Every player can play against thargoids, but if you go against them unprepared you simply have to run away or die trying. Why Powerplay should be different? Why everybody should be able to achieve their goals? It's not about being "welcome" or not, it's about managing the possible failure.

True. But where Rubberduke went off topic isn't about difficulty. His OP isn't about difficulty, after all, but about how the new autopilot modules makes botting even easier than it is now.

His advice, that you need "big ships, lots of money, and lots of skill," isn't about the inherent difficulty of Powerplay. There isn't any inherent difficulty in ABA cargo runs or combat farming, beyond the core competencies any player needs to thrive at this game. If there was, we wouldn't be concerned about botting, after all.

No, his "advice" was about efficiency and PvP. To be efficient at Powerplay you need "big ships and lots of money." If you want to engage in PvP, you need "lots of skill." And that is where we disagree. I don't think you need to be efficient at Powerplay to participate, nor do I think you have to PvP. I just think you need to enjoy yourself, and help out the best you can in the process.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Ok but we can concur that in a gameplay point of view it doesn't make sense to make everything easy to do because everybody want to do everything.
Again like thargoids: I would like to contribute to repel them but I have not the right outfitting, I go there, I die, I tried but I actually didn't contribute at all. I want for everybody to be able to contribute in Powerplay of course. I simply do not agree with people who want to succeed at all costs. I hope I am clear abiut that now (and we really should open another thread about this because I think it really is interesting).

 

[Sylow]

-or- make PowerPlay open only.

Then we can kill bots.

This! FD even considered it at some time, but made no promises and apparently came to no conclusion yet.

PP resolves around player conflict. It's the very one thing in the game, where locking it to open really makes sense.

 

[Sylow]

FWIW, I support Open-only PowerPlay, and perhaps even some mechanism that required manual docking in silent running (to make it extra fun) when delivering PP-related cargo. But since the vast majority of my gameplay does not revolve around PP, I don't want to be penalized solely for being pledged.

I know what you mean. I think the best approach would simply be that the ships computer and cargo hatch just somehow have strange malfunctions when having PP related cargo and kill vouchers on board and you are not in open.

Any PP-related activity involves one of those, so this small change will force people to do their PP actions in open. And using bots there sounds like a very bad idea to me, the bot programmers will absolutely need to add some handling of the rebuy screen...

 

[Old Duck]

Aren't we going a little bit offtopic in this thread too? I mean... I'm ok with talking about how Powerplay should be considered, but we're basically saying the same things in three (or four?) different threads, going offtopic in every single thread.

For me the topic is that somebody wants to nerf MY legitimate gameplay in order to fix a problem that isn't even applicable to my platform - nobody on PS4 is running a bot, unless they built an android that sits in a chair with a DS4 in its hands. So simply put, try again!

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Like I said on page one, if PP was made Open only (and by that, if you're pledged, you have no solo/PG option, and you can not pledge in PG/Solo), then bots are forced in to the open.

Then make the punishment for being caught botting, either account ban(preferred), or simply a PowerPlay ban.
Bots are also known to immediately combat log, which can be monitored.

Bot code writers and users will no doubt use traffics shaping, or the block lists to try and control their game.
So any players with a very long list of blocked players get investigated.
FD can probably check on CMDRs who aren't ever instancing with anyone (in open), and investigate those too.
(Any form of traffic shaping should be considered cheating, even by active players, resulting in bans)

FD could also add a report function too, with a cooldown to prevent spamming, if you see anyone acting odd. Too many reports gets them investigated.

Heck, I joked once about Captcha for docking permission, but what if suspected bots got randomly asked for "something"? (No idea what)

Just some ideas.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

For me the topic is that somebody wants to nerf MY legitimate gameplay in order to fix a problem that isn't even applicable to my platform - nobody on PS4 is running a bot, unless they built an android that sits in a chair with a DS4 in its hands. So simply put, try again!

That is a valid argument sir.

 

[Old Duck]

That is a valid argument sir.

To clarify, my "try again!" remark is directed at the OP, not your post I was replying too. Apologies if you read it as the latter.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

To clarify, my "try again!" remark is directed at the OP, not your post I was replying too. Apologies if you read it as the latter.

I can testify that he's a great guy and probably he didn't even think about that. So we're back to start: FDev should do a lot more against botting (my only concern is that now it's gonna be even more difficult to them to spot bots it's a consequence that can't be underestimated).

 

[Rubbernuke]

To clarify, my "try again!" remark is directed at the OP, not your post I was replying too. Apologies if you read it as the latter.

The problem I have, is that FDev don't seem to allocate the correct amount of thought or time to features. The Open Powerplay proposal, amazing as it is for us, is crumbs. Its six formula tweaks, a few menu edits and a simple (yet incendiary) mode block. The same is happening with these minor pre 2020 updates. These small changes are having knock on effects to older features that FD probably didn't even consider, and in my Ahab like fervour figured the only metric to get them to change things is by framing the solution by dev time required (hence how blunt the solution is).

If FDev actually gave us an indication of how much wiggle room we have with these new features that impact others, it would temper drastic solutions people like me come up with. But it seems that unless the idea is basic and simply changing variables it will never happen.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Also, I doubt many people write their own bot software, so it's probably available somewhere.
A quick Google can probably find it, so we can just report it to FD, then FD can analyse it, then they know exactly what behaviour to look for.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Also, I doubt many people write their own bot software, so it's probably available somewhere.
A quick Google can probably find it, so we can just report it to FD, then FD can analyse it, then they know exactly what behaviour to look for.

Well to be honest: we know those. We did some investigations in the past about that. We probably should linkall of them, but as strange as it sounds, it could result in a ban, considering forum rules. :/

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Well to be honest: we know those. We did some investigations in the past about that. We probably should linkall of them, but as strange as it sounds, it could result in a ban, considering forum rules. :/

Yeah, I linked a gold seller site and immediately reported it, and got myself banned. Lol

Turns out finding bot software is actually really hard. They're all very paranoid on the forum I was just browsing. Lol

Edit: no FD! I was not browsing for myself! I have enough bots on my discord server thank you!
Looks at a particular CMDR in his Squadron