Powerplay Undermining.

[DonBardon]

I was reading @Rebel Yell 's weekly report and decided to share some of my own grievances.

There are several gameplay options for Acquisition and Reinforcement, with certain activities being preferred (buffed) by each power. You can mine if you're with Torval, you can hunt bounties if you're A.L.D.

What is the intended Undermining gameplay?

Carriers are great. But how do you undermine a fort?

Crime (rather, murder) pays little - 32 merits, regardless of the difficulty of the poor victim. Flooding markets... I sold 170 explosives for a staggering 52 merits. Power Kills are tricky because SS are highly unreliable: even if you get a few, you might drop and have no ships show up, or just ships from other powers. Off-nav beacon honestly feels like a workaround because there is no reliable way of finding PP enemies. And the combat in them is a joke.

I guess there's trading PP commodities, but if you didn't jump on the rare-train and are stuck at a low rank, your quota might not be high enough to fill up that T8.

This is just me venting. But, who knows - maybe you'll help me figure out undermining.

PS. I'm leaving out Ody gameplay because I mostly play on VR. Classified Data pays decent but are so damn rare. Oh well.
PPS. I'm yet to try mining. We'll see. Probably should've tried before acquiring notoriety.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Agreed, there's nothing particularly impressive in most cases.

In terms of the decent options I think there's probably three.

- Mining: very good in the right circumstances, but those circumstances are equally good for reinforcing and very rare, so you can get a giant mine-off occasionally (Paesia, cycle 4) but in most systems it's irrelevant - no rings, or wrong economy, or just the wrong BGS state this week.

- Signal sources: if escape pods were turned back on, pods+wreckage+kills would get a decent 3k/12k per hour once I'd got a bit of practice and probably could be optimised further. With only wreckage+kills it's a bit underwhelming, though, not to mention the commodity scooping bug gets really annoying and slows it down a lot.

- Odyssey: combining all the possibilities is actually pretty good (especially if you can find a powered-down base and stick a reactivation mission on top of the theft), again, probably >3k/12k for someone efficient at it, which I'm not.

Power commodities at max rank you'd be moving 500t per hour (for 750/3000 merits per hour since everyone gets an ethos bonus for it) which isn't really worth the effort unless you're combining it with some other non-cargo actions (if you do that as well as the Odyssey actions, perhaps?)

 

[DonBardon]

Agreed, there's nothing particularly impressive in most cases.

In terms of the decent options I think there's probably three.

- Mining: very good in the right circumstances, but those circumstances are equally good for reinforcing and very rare, so you can get a giant mine-off occasionally (Paesia, cycle 4) but in most systems it's irrelevant - no rings, or wrong economy, or just the wrong BGS state this week.

- Signal sources: if escape pods were turned back on, pods+wreckage+kills would get a decent 3k/12k per hour once I'd got a bit of practice and probably could be optimised further. With only wreckage+kills it's a bit underwhelming, though, not to mention the commodity scooping bug gets really annoying and slows it down a lot.

- Odyssey: combining all the possibilities is actually pretty good (especially if you can find a powered-down base and stick a reactivation mission on top of the theft), again, probably >3k/12k for someone efficient at it, which I'm not.

Power commodities at max rank you'd be moving 500t per hour (for 750/3000 merits per hour since everyone gets an ethos bonus for it) which isn't really worth the effort unless you're combining it with some other non-cargo actions (if you do that as well as the Odyssey actions, perhaps?)

I will try mining as soon as possible. But as you say it's very context-dependent. I feel like I should be able to select a system and figure out some ways to undermine it. But if there are no rings, or the right BGS circumstances...

Paradoxically, Forts seem stronger than stronghold systems.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Settlement raids are some how the best option available (unfortunately for who plays in VR or, even worse, for who's on Horizons).

System strength also plays important part, as it can make some systems really tough /that's a tactical choice of course.

On the other side, what we don't know is what kind of dynamic FDEV is currently expecting. I mean, are they expecting to have powers gaining/losing tens of systems at each cycle? Are they willing a slow moving Galaxy, where powers move by 2-3 systems every week? Who knows!!!

 

[Rubbernuke]

Settlement raids are some how the best option available (unfortunately for who plays in VR or, even worse, for who's on Horizons).

System strength also plays important part, as it can make some systems really tough /that's a tactical choice of course.

On the other side, what we don't know is what kind of dynamic FDEV is currently expecting. I mean, are they expecting to have powers gaining/losing tens of systems at each cycle? Are they willing a slow moving Galaxy, where powers move by 2-3 systems every week? Who knows!!!

The problem is something that I feared when PP2 was outlined, in that by using the Goid / BGS as a template you went from PP1s fast moving system down to trench warfare. This requires a bias towards attack to keep it looking alive / moving and swing away from the almost endemic urge to reinforce.

The bottom line is FD have gotten the balance totally wrong, and is just feeding into PP1s status quo mentality without actually learning anything from past BGS iterations mistakes / strengths.

 

[Angus McSix]

You should not expect to make any notable impact undermining any system, if you're the only one doing it. No matter what activity you do. If one player could wreak havoc undermining a system, then Powerplay would be chaos.

However, concerted and co-ordinated efforts with multiple players, that could bring a system down. And conversely, would need a similarly co-ordinated effort to repel.

 

[DonBardon]

And conversely, would need a similarly co-ordinated effort to repel.

That's the problem I see as it stands: one person can (easily) repel the attack of 4-8 people.

There are many ways of making undermining more difficult. They can make it yield somewhat fewer merits (say, 80%). They can send ATR-like PP ships chasing down hostiles.

But making it difficult by not offering gameplay is, in my opinion, a design issue.

 

[Angus McSix]

That's the problem I see as it stands: one person can (easily) repel the attack of 4-8 people.

In a Stronghold or Fortified system, perhaps, where the System Strength Penalty is anything higher than "Standard."

But don't forget, only one faction is capable of reinforcing, which leaves 11 factions capable of undermining.

Would all 11 factions work together to undermine a single system? It's unlikely. Could they? Yes. And their efforts would all fall into the same "bucket" of control points. Whereas the only team capable of beating this back is the team being undermined.

Reinforcing factions kind of need that advantage.

 

[Angus McSix]

- Odyssey: combining all the possibilities is actually pretty good (especially if you can find a powered-down base and stick a reactivation mission on top of the theft), again, probably >3k/12k for someone efficient at it, which I'm not.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that reactivation missions reward merits for reinforcement only. They do not reward merits as an undermining activity.

And it is honestly quite a surprise that powering a base down doesn't reward undermining merits. I can see that Power Regfulators are a listed commodity that can be turned in for merits, yet when I have shut down a settlement in an undermining system and taken the power regulator, I have no way to turn it in.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Would all 11 factions work together to undermine a single system? It's unlikely. Could they? Yes. And their efforts would all fall into the same "bucket" of control points. Whereas the only team capable of beating this back is the team being undermined.

That's true, though non-adjacent Powers would be getting the Beyond Frontline Penalty in addition to any System Strength Penalty, which would make them very inefficient.

Reinforcing factions kind of need that advantage.

The problem is that if the game is balanced so that a theoretical 6:1 ratio (allowing for BFP but without SSP) or even 12:1 ratio (assuming the defenders focus their reinforcement around High/Very High SSP systems) is an even-ish fight for undermining versus reinforcement, since that never actually happens in practice all it means is that everything gets hyper-reinforced.

Every week so far has seen a massive surplus of successful reinforcement over successful undermining. Powers losing systems of any sort, but especially Fortified/Stronghold, is generally rare.

Of course, players aren't split nice and evenly between the 12 powers in the first place. If Aisling Duval were to decide to attack Zemina Torval, well, that's just one power versus one power but Inara estimates a 13:1 numeric advantage for Duval. If everyone else gangs up on Torval, that's a roughly 60:1 numeric advantage. Do we need undermining to be 60 times more difficult than reinforcement just in case the YADAJAFNELP coalition goes for her?

At some point an outnumbered side just has to lose.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that reactivation missions reward merits for reinforcement only. They do not reward merits as an undermining activity.

I haven't specifically tested Reactivation, but they certainly work for Acquisition, and normal donation Support missions work for Undermining, so I'd be surprised if they didn't.

I guess today's task will be to find one and see what happens.

And it is honestly quite a surprise that powering a base down doesn't reward undermining merits. I can see that Power Regfulators are a listed commodity that can be turned in for merits, yet when I have shut down a settlement in an undermining system and taken the power regulator, I have no way to turn it in.

So the friendly-system Power contact taking all the goods and data you also stole doesn't take the regulator? Definitely sounds like a bug, that.

EDIT: are you sure that Power Regulators are allowed? I can see "Energy Regulator" on the hand-in list, but not "Power Regulator".
(It's entirely possible that in a non-English translation they've ended up both being called the same thing, of course...)

 

[Angus McSix]

The problem is that if the game is balanced so that a theoretical 6:1 ratio (allowing for BFP but without SSP) or even 12:1 ratio (assuming the defenders focus their reinforcement around High/Very High SSP systems) is an even-ish fight for undermining versus reinforcement, since that never actually happens in practice all it means is that everything gets hyper-reinforced.

Every week so far has seen a massive surplus of successful reinforcement over successful undermining. Powers losing systems of any sort, but especially Fortified/Stronghold, is generally rare.

This doesn't surprise me, to be honest. Though we are on cycle 7 presently, PowerPlay2.0 is still very new and all the factions have been dedicating time not just experimenting with the best way to solidify their foundation, but they've also been working on putting as many flags down as possible, carving out their own territories and drawing up what will be firm borders between powers.

Acquiring new territory needs to be reinforced right away, otherwise it's extremely susceptible to even the slightest undermining.

Of course, players aren't split nice and evenly between the 12 powers in the first place. If Aisling Duval were to decide to attack Zemina Torval, well, that's just one power versus one power but Inara estimates a 13:1 numeric advantage for Duval. If everyone else gangs up on Torval, that's a roughly 60:1 numeric advantage. Do we need undermining to be 60 times more difficult than reinforcement just in case the YADAJAFNELP coalition goes for her?

At some point an outnumbered side just has to lose.

When the weak are dominated, it is always a mightier force that does it. This will never change.

I haven't specifically tested Reactivation, but they certainly work for Acquisition, and normal donation Support missions work for Undermining, so I'd be surprised if they didn't.

I guess today's task will be to find one and see what happens.

According to the powerplay manual, "Complete Reboot/Restore" missions are for both Acquisition and Reinforce systems, but not for Undermining. So even though "Complete Aid and Humanitarian missions" award merits, that "Complete Reboot/Restore" missions are omitted from Undermining as an activity tells me that it is an intended difference.

You're free to be surprised if reactivation missions don't reward merits for Undermining, and I'll be surprised if they do.

So the friendly-system Power contact taking all the goods and data you also stole doesn't take the regulator? Definitely sounds like a bug, that.

EDIT: are you sure that Power Regulators are allowed? I can see "Energy Regulator" on the hand-in list, but not "Power Regulator".
(It's entirely possible that in a non-English translation they've ended up both being called the same thing, of course...)

If that's true, and it's very possibly true, then the error would be mine in not noticing the difference in terminology. For me, "Power regulators" and "Energy regulators" are synonyms, but while they have similar meanings, they are different and distinct words, so if the powerplay hand-in is "Energy Regulator" and not "Power Regulator," then I'm the dumb one.

 

[nemolomen]

...

If that's true, and it's very possibly true, then the error would be mine in not noticing the difference in terminology. For me, "Power regulators" and "Energy regulators" are synonyms, but while they have similar meanings, they are different and distinct words, so if the powerplay hand-in is "Energy Regulator" and not "Power Regulator," then I'm the dumb one.

Looking at this page: https://inara.cz/elite/components/#tab_items - Select the Goods filter in the upper left

"Energy Regulator" and "Power Regulator" are two distinctly different goods - But there is no information for Energy Regulator.

 

[gumbie]

We have already seen what happens when undermining is too strong/attractive.
They had to address that pretty quickly despite it being somewhat self-containing.

 

[DonBardon]

We have already seen what happens when undermining is too strong/attractive.
They had to address that pretty quickly despite it being somewhat self-containing.

True. Undermining should be high-risk and difficult.

But if it's rendered null, there are no stakes. I just don't think any of the powers (other than maybe Delaine) can lose a Fort at the moment. So why reinforce?

The answer for many is going to be "to get merits -> to get ranks -> to get modules". But there's no strategy, fight-for-territory play in that.

 

[DonBardon]

In a Stronghold or Fortified system, perhaps, where the System Strength Penalty is anything higher than "Standard."

Yes. But if a FS cannot feasibly be undermined, we will soon be facing a very static picture of powers' territories. Seems to go against the dynamic element implied by design.

But don't forget, only one faction is capable of reinforcing, which leaves 11 factions capable of undermining.

Would all 11 factions work together to undermine a single system? It's unlikely. Could they? Yes. And their efforts would all fall into the same "bucket" of control points. Whereas the only team capable of beating this back is the team being undermined.

Reinforcing factions kind of need that advantage.

Yes, but currently UM suffers from "double-dipping".

Merit-gain is reduced. AND there are fewer opportunities.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

We have already seen what happens when undermining is too strong/attractive.
They had to address that pretty quickly despite it being somewhat self-containing.

They had to address the ones enabled by bugs, sure.

But even with those being far faster than expected, hardly anyone actually lost any Stronghold to the SLFs overpaying, and despite the (relatively few) people using the data port exploit the net reinforcement over undermining was over 100 million merits a week before they turned it off.

According to the powerplay manual, "Complete Reboot/Restore" missions are for both Acquisition and Reinforce systems, but not for Undermining. So even though "Complete Aid and Humanitarian missions" award merits, that "Complete Reboot/Restore" missions are omitted from Undermining as an activity tells me that it is an intended difference.

You're free to be surprised if reactivation missions don't reward merits for Undermining, and I'll be surprised if they do.

Well, this one it's me that's surprised. I'd been assuming that Reboot was a subset of Aid/Humanitarian.

True. Undermining should be high-risk and difficult.

Though does that specifically apply to Undermining? The most effective ways to undermine should, certainly - but so should the most effective ways to reinforce or acquire.
But I think it's fine for mid-paced ways to undermine to be no harder than bounty hunting or similar is for reinforcement.

 

[Angus McSix]

Yes. But if a FS cannot feasibly be undermined, we will soon be facing a very static picture of powers' territories. Seems to go against the dynamic element implied by design.

Yes, but currently UM suffers from "double-dipping".

Merit-gain is reduced. AND there are fewer opportunities.

I mentioned earlier that if one is the only player doing any undermining in a system, then the task certainly will feel insurmountable. But a dedicated, co-ordinated, and organized team of just four players can put up some impressive numbers on a system in PP2.0's current state. Every additional player just adds to that potential.

Edit: Right now, the focus seems to me on planting as many flags on as many unoccupied systems as is possible. Once that's all done, I imagine the undermining will ramp up.

But that could be weeks from now.

Looking at this page: https://inara.cz/elite/components/#tab_items - Select the Goods filter in the upper left

"Energy Regulator" and "Power Regulator" are two distinctly different goods - But there is no information for Energy Regulator.

Classic FDev.

If performing Complete Reboot/Restore missions earns 1800 merits per mission, then powering a settlement down and turning its regulator in to a power contact in a nearby friendly Fortified/Stronghold system should reward just as many.

Either FDev screwed up by referring to it as an Energy Regulator -- an item which does not exist -- instead of a power regulator, or something is coming down the pipe that we have yet to see. Based on FDev's track record, I strongly suspect it's the former. Joke's on me, I finally found one. It can spawn in a Powerplay container, apparently. But I've only ever found one since PP2.0 began.

I've been loudly complaining that more mission types should offer merit rewards too. Bounty Hunting, Salvage Recovery, Goods transportation, Mining contracts, Passenger missions, settlement heists, settlement sabotage, settlement assassination, all should reward merits upon completion. They went on and on about "seeing the visible consequences of our powerplay efforts in the councourses of starports where we're working (graffiti, banners, etc) and then gave us literally no reason to disembark from our ships to see these very effects in action.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I mentioned earlier that if one is the only player doing any undermining in a system, then the task certainly will feel insurmountable. But a dedicated, co-ordinated, and organized team of just four players can put up some impressive numbers on a system in PP2.0's current state. Every additional player just adds to that potential.

Undermining is particularly effective against Strongholds and defensive measures require a big effort in terms of numbers to counter it (given that effective activities like rare commodity trading and deliver escape pods are currently disabled).

Edit: Right now, the focus seems to me on planting as many flags on as many unoccupied systems as is possible. Once that's all done, I imagine the undermining will ramp up.

Of course, as the ranking is based on total systems... but also because powers are looking to fill gaps even to create cushion zones between frontlines, and slow progress of opposing powers. We are already hearing of systems being "traded" between powers to avoid never ending attrition... so diplomatic relationships could play also a role in the future (besides "rogues" are always a variable).

But that could be weeks from now.

There are 20k+ systems in the bubble, half are currently occupied by powers... at current (much slower) pace, it will take more time.

 

[Angus McSix]

Undermining is particularly effective against Strongholds and defensive measures require a big effort in terms of numbers to counter it (given that effective activities like rare commodity trading and deliver escape pods are currently disabled).

Would you mind explaining how? Let us assume a stronghold system has been fully fortified, right to the end. A campaign to undermine that stronghold system back down to Fortified would require 1 million control points, +1 for every reinforcement control point earned to resist it.

Dare I say, I would prefer to spend the rest of my days bound to a Sisyphus curse than try and achieve that.

 

[leonardofelin]

Would you mind explaining how? Let us assume a stronghold system has been fully fortified, right to the end. A campaign to undermine that stronghold system back down to Fortified would require 1 million control points, +1 for every reinforcement control point earned to resist it.

Dare I say, I would prefer to spend the rest of my days bound to a Sisyphus curse than try and achieve that.

That means the Power invested 1Mi CPs into reinforcing that Stronghold. Yeah, it should NOT be an easy task.