Pretty much agree with all of that. I got where I am by being extremely opinionated. However I'd hardly call a linkable group from a dozen discords, this forum, and god knows how many other places as deep web but you know what, fair enough. It's not a direct in game resource.So it's deep web that is not searchable, not findable and not usable by those who don't want to do anything with the privacy nightmare that is Discord. Secret deep web is of course necessary for opsec, but I think that the main PP2 comms platform should be neutral, unopinionated and not playing politics. It's only purpose should be various splinter cells/solo operators informing each other of what ops they are involved in and seeking/offering help for those ops, not a top-down command structure with a diplomatic corps attachment.
OK, good for you. I'm sure you're a good leader, I just happen to be strongly opinionated when it comes to Powerplay blocs, player minor factions and BGS
Since we the "renegades" never signed or agreed to any clauses, treatises or codes of conducts that we must follow in PP, outside of game and outside of Fdev ToS, and inside the game the only condition we did sign was "work to propagate the Power, get benefits, face the risks", it's really only PP group leaders' problem, and group leaders' alone. No offence.
I've been doing focused work and quite a heavy lifting alone in one acquisition system this cycle (there are a few randoms doing some work, but no-one else I've seen on a regular basis in my time zone), I've been pushing the needle quite well with ~100000 merits so far (partly due to very favourable conditions from Thursday to Sunday in that system) and I have a general outline for the next few cycles. I'm sure a small group of 5...10 can really make a difference with similar focused effort. Also, a focused action of 5, or even just two friends, is by definition organized PP, no less valid than a massive Discord group of, say, 1000.
Sure, someone would decide to "play statecraft", but there would be a lot of splinter groups, small squadrons doing their own thing and either not caring about interpower alliances or having a diametrically different alliance. Eg I can easily envision a non-aggression pact between a group of Winters and a group of Kaine pledges, since both powers represent the more progressive wings with similar values and policies in their respective superpowers. I feel the PP would be much more interesting this way. We don't want uncontrollable chaos in real life, but in video games uncontrollable (PvP) chaos makes for fun gameplay
Yes, it's all politics. And as with all politics there are bound to be splinter groups and dissenting opinions within the same party. I happen to be one of those dissenting voices since I really love chaotic whirlwinds in games (and also in other media), rather than a boring stalemate where everything goes according to The Plan all the time and nothing interesting ever happens. That's why Thargoid war was so good in the beginning before the Great Sampling Project--it was an all-out all-hands-on-deck conflict against a relentless power with whom diplomacy and treatises were simply not an option.
I know for a fact that a small handful of people with the same mission can do. I've run these myself. You can win wars with dedicated organized squads. I love that stuff.
Ultimately different groups have different goals, which led to different Blocs, which, a few thousand dominos later have led to us having this gentlemans conversation.
I won't bore you with Alliance history, it bores me enough. But suffice to say that the past influences the present. Not just in a PP1.0 staff think PP 2.0 must run the same way, because I was never PP 1.0 staff. But more diplomatic incidents in the past caused a long string of cause and effect leading to the decisions of today.
It's actually quite fascinating.
I digress though, we all get to play our own way.
Oh wait, they don't care as long as I'm doing good work on Mahon's behalf as the PP 2.0 system sees it.