PowerPlay: Can players affect CC yield of systems via background simulation actions?

[Viajero]

As per the question,

According to the PP manual, CC yield of systems is proportional to population, but

- Do we know if there are other factors that affect CC yield? Such as the Government type, economy state (boom), security level etc for example?
- Can players affect those factors via activity within the background simulation (i.e. local minor faction missions, local trading, bounty hunting etc?

Any light on this by devs would be great.

Being able to influence via background simulation the factors that affect CC yield would be awesome. For example, we would be able to recover a negative CC yield system etc. More gameplay options for PP players to have an actual impact and manage PP.

This could work out with a set of min and max caps to CC yield to avoid extreme unrelaistic states and for balance at start, but in between those min and max default CC yields players would be able to play the background sim as usual to affect that CC yield accordingly based on economy state, security level, government type, famine, civil war etc...

One thing that could potentially be in conflict with current PP mechanics is that what it is proposed here will be sort of fulfilling a similar purpose to "Undermine" and "Fortify" actions. But this conflict can be in principle easily solved:

Background simulation actions (trading, local missions etc) would have to affect changes in CC in a much more slow and gradual time frame. Just aswell as playing the background simulation is a slow process already anyways. Also, changes to CC yield due to changes in the system populaiton, economy etc, would be applied constantly until the relevant population, economy etc factor changes agaiun.

On the other hand Undermining and Fortifying actions would produce a much faster impact in CC (weekly PP turns) but those changes would be also only temporary (that same PP turn week).

I think both types complement each other quite nicely. One is a structural change, the other is rather opportunistic/temporary and based on the state of a given PP situation.

 

[HeimdallofHavn]

Great ideas,

As far as we know right now, government type only influences the fortification triggers:

"Like expansion, each power has an ethos that dictates the methods it uses to fortify a system, which are
particularly effective against some government types and ineffective against others.
If the control system’s government type is vulnerable to the power’s ethos the fortify success trigger is
reduced. If the government type is resistant to the power’s ethos the fortify success trigger is increased.
If over 50% of exploited systems have a vulnerable government type to the power’s ethos the success trigger is
further reduced by a significant amount.
If over 50% of exploited systems have a resistant government type to the power’s ethos the success trigger is
further increased by a significant amount.
Effects of ethos versus government type are only computed at the end of a cycle. Any changes to government
types controlling systems will only apply during the following cycle." (Powerplay manual)

 

[Viajero]

Shameless bump!

 

[Ekar]

I said recently-

I championed PP when it was announced because I saw it as a vital part of the game... ...I see PP as the top down, large scale control over Systems, whereas normal trading, mission running, mining etc should form the 'bottom up', local management and maintenance of stations and environments within Systems. How populations are affected perhaps.. That's one way to think of it atleast but currently not implemented that way.

I love the idea of 'bottom up' world shaping... making sure stations have enough of what they need to produce goods, etc. Strong local economies would make systems more worthwhile for PP exploitation or control. Badly managed or neglected systems would have the opposite effect. Both outcomes could be controlled or heavily influenced by players, just doing what they normally do.

Population seems like a simple and broad enough metric to extract CC from. What would be a more interesting idea to me would be... how could we affect population (thereby making Systems more attractive candidates for expansion)? In the future it would be awesome to be able to work with others to take a backwater little system with great potential and turn it into high population system with tons of activity going on. Or reversely, see how a neglected high population system devolves due to war/famine/disease/trade breaking down/other, etc.

That way, you have the top-down PP gameplay and bottom-up normal economic activity interconnecting with each other in an interesting way. For eg, if you're a player who's invested heavily in a particular system (perhaps you've been helping to terraform and populate a new world) but you don't like the idea of a particular Power getting it's hooks in, you might be persuaded to do something about that as well. Gaming on different levels simultaneously...

 

[archeolog108]

I said recently-






Population seems like a simple and broad enough metric to extract CC from. What would be a more interesting idea to me would be... how could we affect population (thereby making Systems more attractive candidates for expansion)? In the future it would be awesome to be able to work with others to take a backwater little system with great potential and turn it into high population system with tons of activity going on. Or reversely, see how a neglected high population system devolves due to war/famine/disease/trade breaking down/other, etc.

That way, you have the top-down PP gameplay and bottom-up normal economic activity interconnecting with each other in an interesting way. For eg, if you're a player who's invested heavily in a particular system (perhaps you've been helping to terraform and populate a new world) but you don't like the idea of a particular Power getting it's hooks in, you might be persuaded to do something about that as well. Gaming on different levels simultaneously...

Amen to that, brother!

 

[Jmanis]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6047

Population effects were seemingly meant to be a thing...

 

[Viajero]

That way, you have the top-down PP gameplay and bottom-up normal economic activity interconnecting with each other in an interesting way. For eg, if you're a player who's invested heavily in a particular system (perhaps you've been helping to terraform and populate a new world) but you don't like the idea of a particular Power getting it's hooks in, you might be persuaded to do something about that as well. Gaming on different levels simultaneously...

Precisely. That is the whole point of the OP indeed.

I presume that as always the devil is in the detail. The challenge here for FDEV I presume is to come up withe the algorithms and formulas that would connect the background sim main variables (government type, economy state, security levels, population etc etc) with nominal CC yields (i.e. those before any undermine or fortify activity). If poorly balanced or unchecked it could easily become a source of exploits right and left.

I d assume that such formula would need to be iterated many times until getting it right, and would probably need to have some kind of mininmum and maximum cap limits for CC yields to start with to avoid extremes while developing it etc.

 

[Retrograde]

This really needs to happen! An economics boom should lead to more CC points, famines and wars should reduce CC, etc. Powerplay would become far more integrated with other aspects of the game. And this would mean that players could support their Power in more flexible ways - through trading, mining, etc. - in addition to the preparation, expansion, fortification mechanics.

And I really hope an update soon focuses on local system UI improvements. Give us separate tabs in the system map for stellar data, economic data, and governance. This would parallel the different galaxy views. Show us with graphs or bars how close we are to tipping points - boom, war, system change, etc.

 

[Drelthar]

This would also mean none PP players could 'undermine' powers without signing up to another power.

 

[Tinman]

This would also mean none PP players could 'undermine' powers without signing up to another power.

Don't really see a problem with this really.

I'm and everyone else are constantly affecting "powers" around the world collectively in our small ways by the actions we do without being "signed up" anywhere. We might start to buy a popular merchandise that is manufactured in a certain country, which leads to financial improvements in that country, which leads to more money for certain "factions" there making it possible for them to grow. The opposite is of course also true which might "undermine" the very same "powers"...

 

[Ekar]

Don't really see a problem with this really.

I'm and everyone else are constantly affecting "powers" around the world collectively in our small ways by the actions we do without being "signed up" anywhere. We might start to buy a popular merchandise that is manufactured in a certain country, which leads to financial improvements in that country, which leads to more money for certain "factions" there making it possible for them to grow. The opposite is of course also true which might "undermine" the very same "powers"...

Yep, as they say- 'everything is political'

 

[Gormadoc]

Would be neat if forcing a change in the controlling minor faction to one more in line with power, had some positive effects.

 

[Viajero]

One thing that could potentially be in conflict with conflict with current PP mechanics is that what it is proposed here will be sort of fulfilling a similar purpose to "Undermine" and "Fortify" actions. But this conflict can be in principe easily solved:

Background simulation actions (trading, local missions etc) would have to affect changes in CC in a much more slow and gradual time frame. Just aswell as playing the background simulation is a slow process already anyways. Also, changes to CC yield due to changes in the system populaiton, economy etc, would be applied constantly until the relevant population, economy etc factor changes agaiun.

On the other hand Undermining and Fortifying actions would produce a much faster impact in CC (weekly PP turns) but those changes would be also only temporary (that same PP turn week).

I think both types complement each other quite nicely. One is a structural change, the other is rather opportunistic and based on the state of a given PP situation.

EDIT: upated the OP with this.

 

[criosx]

All of this. For me this is the most important element missing in the game right now.