A ship destroyed should instantly count as undermining. It makes no sense to tie this together with turning in the vouchers.
Powerplay SNIPING in Powerplay
- Thread starter chagnampra
- Start date
A ship destroyed should instantly count as undermining. It makes no sense to tie this together with turning in the vouchers.
3000 stored merits would be too much, even 1000 might be slightly excessive. It needs to be balanced against fortification, which is usually about 400-450 max per journey. I realise that the counter argument is that you might have to travel a greater potential distance to undermine but that would be balanced by the existing mechanics of fortification, travelling back and forth between systems. Yes, it would be a big change and would potentially irritate alot of players but this change has been clearly needed since cycle 1.
Ultimately the decision will be in FD's hands, if they decide to implement it.
Ultimately the decision will be in FD's hands, if they decide to implement it.
For the 5th column maybe it's possible something like this; Archon Delaine: Idiots you prepared the most awful system in the galaxy. You are saboteurs or plain incompetents. Either way all your merits are cancelled, no more credits and bye bye Kumo crew membership.
Scudmungus
Banned
Mek de tings needin time time fah effects to reach maximum effect.
Earlier playa put merit down/into play/spend, betta de effect - until maximum reached.
Dis encourage playas to spend merits as early as possible..
Earlier playa put merit down/into play/spend, betta de effect - until maximum reached.
Dis encourage playas to spend merits as early as possible..
Last edited:
I'm not sure about this idea. If you don't want a system to be undermined at the last minute, use the seven days you have to fortify it. For better or for worse the whole system is set up to favour hassling your enemies rather than helping your own faction. So you should be expecting your systems to be undermined at all times.
Unfortunately people do leave systems vulnerable because fortifying is an unattractive option for most players. To fortify for Arissa I can sit in the dock for hours at a time slowly building up my quota of fortification widgets and/or pay so much money to fast track the process that I'll make a net loss on my Powerplay activities ... or I can go and do combat for more merits at the cost of just my resupply. No wonder people don't bother to fortify.
I don't really see a problem with "sniping" and if there is one I certainly don't think that the solution is to make undermining require tedious back and forths.
Unfortunately people do leave systems vulnerable because fortifying is an unattractive option for most players. To fortify for Arissa I can sit in the dock for hours at a time slowly building up my quota of fortification widgets and/or pay so much money to fast track the process that I'll make a net loss on my Powerplay activities ... or I can go and do combat for more merits at the cost of just my resupply. No wonder people don't bother to fortify.
I don't really see a problem with "sniping" and if there is one I certainly don't think that the solution is to make undermining require tedious back and forths.
I think the point is being missed here.
If this was a real galaxy, there would be local news reports telling us that lots of ships had gone missing. This is something that I've mentioned a few times in regards to the BGS. There's no indication of what's happening in the galaxy until the tick when the influence numbers change with no explanation.
Galnet should be telling us when ships are being destroyed, whether due to bounty hunting, piracy, police intervention, or powerplay actions. That really needs to happen as close to real-time as possible just like the traffic report in each system so we can react to it and defend positions appropriately. Then you've got an immersive and addictive game on your hands. What we have now is at best 24hr detached from other players' actions, and at worst a full power-play week detached.
If this was a real galaxy, there would be local news reports telling us that lots of ships had gone missing. This is something that I've mentioned a few times in regards to the BGS. There's no indication of what's happening in the galaxy until the tick when the influence numbers change with no explanation.
Galnet should be telling us when ships are being destroyed, whether due to bounty hunting, piracy, police intervention, or powerplay actions. That really needs to happen as close to real-time as possible just like the traffic report in each system so we can react to it and defend positions appropriately. Then you've got an immersive and addictive game on your hands. What we have now is at best 24hr detached from other players' actions, and at worst a full power-play week detached.
Fair enough, the number of stored merits is up for debate; but the principle is sound. I wouldn't want to restrict underminers too much, however, so I would be more inclined to suggest a number higher than the ones you have suggested.
Last edited:
On a side note, can I just say that I appreciate the salutation! I also love bananas and had TWO on my bowl of museli this morning...
Thanks for the response.
If the super visibility is not possible to implement the limitation of vouches will be valid option to reduce the problem.
Still the problem exists and if the limit is too high it is still easily possible to undermine a completely safe system in the last hour with a small number of organized commanders.
If the limit is too low you will annoy the undermining CMDRs and it will have a serious negative impact on the undermining activity which would be bad.
I hope that the design can be adapted to make such things as super visibility in the future easier to implement.
But is this a sticking plaster to a bigger problem? Fortification is not skills based, it depends on time, money and player numbers- its firmly reactive. Undermining is the opposite as ther is no limitation and you can be proactive costing nothing.
My solution:
Fortification is not a binary outcome, and fortification allocations are doubled.
Now: less than 100% fortification == fail if undermined.
What about changing it so ANY fortifiaction results in the undermining value being reduced?
For example:
System X costs 100 CC undermined. If fortified 10%, this is reduced to 90 CC, and so on until parity is reached. If the fortifying power does not get undermined in this system, you get the normal fortification CC back (e.g. 20CC).
This makes merits UNDER 100% count for something, so only those over 100% are wasted. It would make for more strategic planning, be more realistic, and allow for last ditch defenses so if you suspect sniping (its not hard to work out if you look) you can 'hedge' your bets, risking spreading out your merits rather than having to complete everything.
My solution:
Fortification is not a binary outcome, and fortification allocations are doubled.
Now: less than 100% fortification == fail if undermined.
What about changing it so ANY fortifiaction results in the undermining value being reduced?
For example:
System X costs 100 CC undermined. If fortified 10%, this is reduced to 90 CC, and so on until parity is reached. If the fortifying power does not get undermined in this system, you get the normal fortification CC back (e.g. 20CC).
This makes merits UNDER 100% count for something, so only those over 100% are wasted. It would make for more strategic planning, be more realistic, and allow for last ditch defenses so if you suspect sniping (its not hard to work out if you look) you can 'hedge' your bets, risking spreading out your merits rather than having to complete everything.
Last edited:
Is this going to be applied to crime sweeps as well? Expansions can be opposed in crime sweeps and hoarding merits can also snipe an expansion, and so to make this fair, the expanding power should also share the cap.
Also, 500 vouchers is not a decent number of vouchers. You can acquire 500 vouchers very, very quickly at 30 merits per kill. Undermining would then require more time travelling than actual undermining. Time spent travelling is not particularly interesting, and I would not be surprised if this change sees players efforts reduce in power-play due to pure boredom.
....
Furthermore, at winters we spend time in analysis based on previous cycle history and the rates of progress on control systems to project where snipe targets may occur (kind of like a PID feedback control algorithm). Snipe systems are challenging for the fortifiers, and challenging for the analysts, and something I enjoy predicting, it is rewarding when you get it right. Removing this challenge will dumb the mechanics down and spoon feed more un-organised groups where it will remove the advantage of co-ordination and analysis.
Last edited:
To me the system seems perfect, as sniping right now requires a lot of coordination and effort, involves a big risk and is the only way for a smaller power to take on a larger one. If ALD knows where they're being undermined, they're invincible as they always have more than enough manpower to fortify everything and will still have enough left to push expansion. Sniping allows the others to have a minor success aswell, if that's removed or limited it would actually hurt the balance and make it just a numbers game with the huge differences in backing we have right now.
EDIT: One way I'd like that to work would be to base the syncing of stats on player travel. Meaning: One of your guys has to actually SCOUT system A and return to HQ for your faction to see the current status auf said system. That would also add a whole new layer to the nature of Power Play.
EDIT2: Also make that available only in Open, so the opposing faction has a chance to block communications from and to that system.
Last edited:
The obvious short term answer is to stop powers paying out merits once a system hits 100% fortified or undermined. Why in The name of Christ would they keep paying out after this?
This would make people think where they need to go next. Not perfect, but at least it would involve some thought and research.
I can imagine the poopsockers wouldn't be happy about this. They're not 5th columnists; people who care for this of a game mechanic are the minority in PP, the rest are just people wanting to make rank 5 in the closest system to them possible.
In our group it's all people ask, 'who wants to go grind merits here'. It's killing me because no one wants to do anything fun anymore.
This would make people think where they need to go next. Not perfect, but at least it would involve some thought and research.
I can imagine the poopsockers wouldn't be happy about this. They're not 5th columnists; people who care for this of a game mechanic are the minority in PP, the rest are just people wanting to make rank 5 in the closest system to them possible.
In our group it's all people ask, 'who wants to go grind merits here'. It's killing me because no one wants to do anything fun anymore.
Last edited:
Hello Commander persephonius!
This isn't really so much of an issue for opposition in various conflict zones, as both sides are using the same rules, though this limit might automatically affect such zones, which is something we'll have to consider.
As far as the limit value is concerned, the good thing about a single number is that it should be easy enough to change.
It comes down to finding a value that gives a fairly good balance between the upside (sniping reduction) and the downside (more travel time for undermining).
This isn't really so much of an issue for opposition in various conflict zones, as both sides are using the same rules, though this limit might automatically affect such zones, which is something we'll have to consider.
As far as the limit value is concerned, the good thing about a single number is that it should be easy enough to change.
It comes down to finding a value that gives a fairly good balance between the upside (sniping reduction) and the downside (more travel time for undermining).
But what about my comment about the challenge that sniping brings to the game?
How to counter 5th columning, rich trolls and preparation grinders:
Make the Preparation Nominations actually useful, by limiting the number you can get during the week. Rank 1? You get a weekly allotment of 0 preparation powerplay goods. Rank 2? You get 25 preparation goods for the entire week. Rank 5? You get 250 preparation goods for the entire week.
How to work against sniping:
Well, not all "sniping" is sniping. If I'm using the last 2 hours of the cycle to undermine a system and end up docking in my closest control system with 5 minutes left, that's not sniping - that's just last minute undermining.
As a Mahon pledge I don't care that people try to snipe us - it makes it challenging to try to balance our budget. We're not a big power, but we're exceedingly well organized, which is why we're able to handle it, even though we have arguably the worst kind of fortification method - inbound.
No, sniping is fine, and as the the fortification manager for the Mahon subreddit, I can say that one of the most challenging and actually fun parts of powerplay is trying to figure out which systems will be undermined at the last minute. Taking that away just makes the game FAR too easy. Any power playing with outbound fortifications are already playing the game on medium difficult at worst. If undermining becomes too difficult, then it just pushes it all down to easy mode, and it's no longer a challenge.
If you want to limit how many undermining merits you can carry around, don't make it a stupidly low number. 3,000 is twice what you need for rating 4, and it's half of what you need to maintain rating 5, and as the fortification manager for Mahon, I honestly don't think it should be lower than that. Also - if there's any kind of limit on how many undermining merits you can carry, the exact same limit must be applied to combat expansions.
The main problem with fortification vs undermining is that underminers have the advantage, because you cannot hide fortifications, whereas you can hold on to undermining merits. The one thing I'd like to see done in terms of making undermining more visible is adding a single line of text to the traffic report available in all stations:
"In the last 24 hours 253 ships have gone missing."
That's it. It doesn't have to differentiate between player and NPC ships being destroyed, whether they're powerplay ships or not. Just that this number of ships have been destroyed.
It'll add another element of information to the game, and it'll make it much more interesting to play cat and mouse in terms of fortifications and undermining.
Other things:
1) Thursdays, at 07:20 AM UTC, this kind of raw data should be available for everyone to download, and it should be the exact data used to calculate the turnover results. It's 2015, and powerplay is a strategy game. There is absolutely no reason the data shouldn't be available to everyone once the cycle has ticked over.
2) For the love of Vectron, please give us organized players a way to pull live (or at least semi-live and with proper timestamps) powerplay data from the game, so we don't have to spend untold hours manually updating our spreadsheets. Again - it's 2015, this shouldn't be difficult. Give us something where we can get the current fortification and undermining numbers for a system we're docked in. That's all I'm asking (right now at least). Pretty please with sugar on top.
If you give us those two things (and they're really not big asks), I promise I'll give you a special mention the next time I write a powerplay cycle analysis.
Make the Preparation Nominations actually useful, by limiting the number you can get during the week. Rank 1? You get a weekly allotment of 0 preparation powerplay goods. Rank 2? You get 25 preparation goods for the entire week. Rank 5? You get 250 preparation goods for the entire week.
How to work against sniping:
Well, not all "sniping" is sniping. If I'm using the last 2 hours of the cycle to undermine a system and end up docking in my closest control system with 5 minutes left, that's not sniping - that's just last minute undermining.
As a Mahon pledge I don't care that people try to snipe us - it makes it challenging to try to balance our budget. We're not a big power, but we're exceedingly well organized, which is why we're able to handle it, even though we have arguably the worst kind of fortification method - inbound.
No, sniping is fine, and as the the fortification manager for the Mahon subreddit, I can say that one of the most challenging and actually fun parts of powerplay is trying to figure out which systems will be undermined at the last minute. Taking that away just makes the game FAR too easy. Any power playing with outbound fortifications are already playing the game on medium difficult at worst. If undermining becomes too difficult, then it just pushes it all down to easy mode, and it's no longer a challenge.
If you want to limit how many undermining merits you can carry around, don't make it a stupidly low number. 3,000 is twice what you need for rating 4, and it's half of what you need to maintain rating 5, and as the fortification manager for Mahon, I honestly don't think it should be lower than that. Also - if there's any kind of limit on how many undermining merits you can carry, the exact same limit must be applied to combat expansions.
The main problem with fortification vs undermining is that underminers have the advantage, because you cannot hide fortifications, whereas you can hold on to undermining merits. The one thing I'd like to see done in terms of making undermining more visible is adding a single line of text to the traffic report available in all stations:
"In the last 24 hours 253 ships have gone missing."
That's it. It doesn't have to differentiate between player and NPC ships being destroyed, whether they're powerplay ships or not. Just that this number of ships have been destroyed.
It'll add another element of information to the game, and it'll make it much more interesting to play cat and mouse in terms of fortifications and undermining.
Other things:
1) Thursdays, at 07:20 AM UTC, this kind of raw data should be available for everyone to download, and it should be the exact data used to calculate the turnover results. It's 2015, and powerplay is a strategy game. There is absolutely no reason the data shouldn't be available to everyone once the cycle has ticked over.
2) For the love of Vectron, please give us organized players a way to pull live (or at least semi-live and with proper timestamps) powerplay data from the game, so we don't have to spend untold hours manually updating our spreadsheets. Again - it's 2015, this shouldn't be difficult. Give us something where we can get the current fortification and undermining numbers for a system we're docked in. That's all I'm asking (right now at least). Pretty please with sugar on top.
If you give us those two things (and they're really not big asks), I promise I'll give you a special mention the next time I write a powerplay cycle analysis.
Last edited:
