Then intention for me posting my ideas was to let people tear into them and see if they are viable before posting them on suggestions. My ideas here sit alongside those of Sandros.
Powerplay Faction: Felicia Winters Powerplay Solo vs. Open
- Thread starter Mechman43
- Start date
Then intention for me posting my ideas was to let people tear into them and see if they are viable before posting them on suggestions. My ideas here sit alongside those of Sandros.
Yeah, fair nuff. It feels a bit awkward hijacking a thread to do so, with the confusion that brings (to me anyway
)Yeah, fair nuff. It feels a bit awkward hijacking a thread to do so, with the confusion that brings (to me anyway
I felt the thread had got to the point where discussing what to do would help, and to illustrate what could be done. Plus I needed Powerplay guys to look at it.
The issue with per system turmoil is the time to respond factor which you can compensated for by turning turmoil into a battle over a number of cycles followed by a possible cool down period. Eg turmoil is a first to 3 wins battle between those opposing & those fortifying. Also one of the the reasons to move to per system turmoil is so that you can get rid of loss making spheres which would make 5C largely pointless as they cannot make a Power collapse by forcing said loss making spheres on them.
CMDR Justinian Octavius
It is a strange system where we can make strategic attacks, but not strategic withdrawals. It's a shame about console free-multi-accounts & cheap Alts also. All-in-all it makes any vote-mechanics untenable. Maybe a mix of outbound deliveries and missions or suchlike, would be the best replacement.
3 tranches; forts, sheds, expansions.
Theyre similar things really, no reason they cant all be ingame activities instead of one-click wonders. (So long as left-click fills the hold/takes full allocation, right click for increments..)
If we're looking for a solution that isnt hopelessly flawed before it even begins, then voting mechanics cannot be included.
*I got a bit carried away. It is only voting based primarily on the number of accounts that is unworkable. This is covered in the Proposal being discussed ; votes dependent on constructive work done are viable, so long as the votes accumulated are equivalent if done on one account or spread across many.
Last edited:
The only way to get rid of 5C is to make expansions valueless except for the total amount of systems controlled. A while ago I proposed a BGS PP fusion that make PP 5C proof doing just that- in effect decrentralising Powerplay.
One of my biggest fears is that the geniuses at FDev actually like 5th C tactics and think it's some kind of cool surreptitious gameplay element. The more likely reality is that they care very little for PP at all and since Sandro's departure there isn't anyone with a sympathetic ear. Though they did give us mouse control back so maybe not all hope is lost?
I will make them care. I have Photoshop and I'm not afraid to deploy Powerplay memes at every opportunity.
They start to care about PP when current playerpool will boycot new paid update. Btw, while i think 5c is just pinacle of cheating in PP, i also think it's only element that create some dynamic under current flawed system, but still open and fair play would be better for game in general. Facts are that Elite have no competition and not make any money, and it's quite horrible for open world game that still uses some company resources.
They told me here that the EDDN base is the same for all platforms (consoles and computers)
It turns out that in the game the base of the Milky Way is also one. Those. it turns out to make the software only open, you need to at least level the controllability of ships for different platforms.
To begin, ban the use of any macros in the game ...
It turns out that in the game the base of the Milky Way is also one. Those. it turns out to make the software only open, you need to at least level the controllability of ships for different platforms.
To begin, ban the use of any macros in the game ...
I probably did not understand clearly.
To make sense in this, first you need to start the players in one instance from computers and consoles.
And how to achieve a decrease in the advantage of the joystick, and even more so the keyboard (since the keyboard gives gigantic advantage in faoff mode) over the gamepad.
AFAIK PC's are not sold in packages with joysticks and there are joysticks availble for both consoles. FA-of PvP on consoloes can be find on youtube.
People whose consoles prefer to play on large TV from the couch and it’s somewhat problematic to use joysticks.
I didn’t write that they cannot play games in the FAOFF; I wrote that control in the FAOFF mode on the mouse is much easier than on the joystick and gamepad. Due to the fact that the mouse can enable the auto-centering function.
If you flew like this at least once, you will understand what I mean. On the joystick, I sweep the hilt hard to level the ship.
I play on on 50" TV on PC and i use joystick sitting on couch, no idea what is problematic in this.
Last edited:
I wish they would make the PP ships that spawn at the NAV beacons as difficult to kill as the ones in the CZ or atleast give you more than 10 merits per kill. Killing ships at a NAV while opposing gives you 30 merits and they are super easy to kill. Compared to a CZ where most stuff takes alot longer to kill and gets you 10 merits for your trouble. It puts any combat power at a huge disadvantage when it comes to trying to expand. Any hauling power can just shovel money into a fire and win if the triggers favor you.
Last edited:
Definitely, it would be a bit less of a grindfest we have now, for me PP PVE is unconsensual, even just for a build testing CZ's are both more fun and more profitable in practice, so are wing assasiantion missions, it's not only OOPP, but any cghanges that make skill in any element of the game relevant would be nice.