Yes, I think so. Roughly the merit curve gives
| Tier | Excluding Higher Tiers | Including Higher Tiers |
| Top 1% (roughly top 10 in medium-sized powers) | 13% | 13% |
| Top 10% | 47% | 60% |
| Top 25% | 20% | 80% |
| Top 50% | 13% | 93% |
| Top 75% | 7% | >99% |
| Top 100% | <1% | 100% |
Estimating Powerplay merits
- Thread starter Ian Doncaster
- Start date
Thanks, I was wondering how large of a casual base there was that could potentially and randomly counter coordinated efforts, assuming coordination increases to some degree with contribution. I’m sure there some people knocking out hundreds of thousands of merits a week on their own, especially until level 100 becomes the norm, but as we move on I’d assume most in the top 10%, maybe even 25% are following some amount of communal direction, and I would at least lean towards thinking the big picture won’t be affected much by those casually contributing.
Last edited:
The thing about "casual gamers" is that they're never going to think strategically on behalf of their power, as opposed to how quickly they're going to reach level 100 for maximize their benefits. Working strategically on behalf of your power is typically going to produce less merits compared to maximizing merit generation, especially when that strategic work involves undermining.
As for coordination... it didn't take me long to be able to tell the difference between "background" merit generation and those created due to strategic generation. I'm pretty sure I've got a second Neo-Abolitionist member in my theater of operations, working to reinforce the same system I'm reinforcing. It was also very obvious when a group of four (minimum) players arrived in the same system to undermine it, and another Aisling supporter showed up to help stem the tide. And my long-term strategic goal has a conflict that mirrors the one I'm currently working on.
And based on the PowerPlay strategic map, both systems are minor skirmishes compared to some of the bigger conflicts going on.
I hadn’t considered that at all.
I do like “background” better than the “casual” I was using for lack of a better term.
I put more than a casual amount of time in the game, but I’m not a die hard when it comes to PP. I have some systems I like to take care of, and they fall under LYR, so I’ll more or less passively contribute to him through what I’d otherwise already be doing while enjoying his rewards. While I’ve not much interest in joining a group for PP or taking direction, I don’t want to hurt the cause either, but it doesn’t sound like there is much of a risk of me stumbling obliviously into such action.
Which isn't going to be all that quick either - if we say the 25% mark is still "casual", that's roughly 30000 merits a week, so 25 weeks to maximise rank. The 50% mark is about half that, so about a year to maximise rank.
Conversely dedicated merit grind without a specific strategic purpose is likely to be concentrated in a very small number of systems (Paesia, for example) which are already maxed out at Stronghold.
Just in case you're still gathering data (though I believe you've got plenty from the top 10%), I remembered to take screen shots for last week.
Despite dedicating a day to acquiring and engineering the newest ship of my collection:
I still managed to generate 127,020 merits, which placed me in 181st place.
I was originally hoping to go on the offensive this week, but the system I've been reinforcing was undermined pretty heavily last week. Since I need it to be at least Fortified to negate the "behind front line" penalty, it looks like it'll be another week of reinforcement.
Despite dedicating a day to acquiring and engineering the newest ship of my collection:
I still managed to generate 127,020 merits, which placed me in 181st place.
I was originally hoping to go on the offensive this week, but the system I've been reinforcing was undermined pretty heavily last week. Since I need it to be at least Fortified to negate the "behind front line" penalty, it looks like it'll be another week of reinforcement.