Hi All,
We just wanted to get in touch regarding today's powerplay cycle update.
We have noticed in today's cycle update that there have been some unexpected results. We just wanted to let you know that we are aware of this and the development team are currently investigating. More information will follow soon.
Developer update: After investigating the issue, what we saw this morning was the result of the overly agressive ramp for the overhead calculation. Which as mentioned last week, we felt, needed to be reduced.
Details can be found below
---
Investigating Arissa’s woes in the current cycle, we’re looking at making the following tweaks:
We’ve pushed out our proposed change to the system overhead cost that we floated in the last update, effectively removing the brick wall stopping large powers expanding whilst retaining the concept of increased effort for expanding the powerbase.
This softening of overhead costs will also take Arissa out of deficit this turn, as well as angle the game play more towards where we want it to go (less being stopped by arbitrary walls).
Alongside this, we’ll be raising up Arissa’s systems out of turmoil to match this change.
Both of these changes should be coming through very shortly.
Going forward, for the next cycle, we’re looking to simplify how overhead is calculated, applying it based on control systems rather than all exploited systems. This should hopefully make it a little easier to consider.
In addition, we’re taking a look at player action availability, to reduce the chance of Commanders unwittingly sabotaging their own power:
Currently, when a power falls into a CC deficit, although new preparation is halted, expansion still takes place for successful preparation from the previous cycle. This drives the power deeper into deficit, which is compounded by overhead costs.
So we’re going to gate expansion behind a CC wall: we’re going to prevent expansion taking place when a power is in deficit, and we’re going to prevent expansion succeeding if ownership of the system would push the power into deficit.
These changes won’t stop Commanders from having the ability to make poor or good choices (you can still expand into low value systems); it will simply stop them from compounded the quality choices (and hopefully limit the effects of any fifth column elements – Commanders that join a power simply to sabotage it).
As an aside, we will also be applying a fix to the merit system that should ensure merit decay is working as intended. So from the next cycle onwards expect that change to be active.
Past the immediate future of the current and next cycle, we’re still chewing over the concept of targeted strikes – we’ll update you folk on this when we’ve come to a decision.
---
Thanks,
Zac
We just wanted to get in touch regarding today's powerplay cycle update.
We have noticed in today's cycle update that there have been some unexpected results. We just wanted to let you know that we are aware of this and the development team are currently investigating. More information will follow soon.
Developer update: After investigating the issue, what we saw this morning was the result of the overly agressive ramp for the overhead calculation. Which as mentioned last week, we felt, needed to be reduced.
Details can be found below
---
Investigating Arissa’s woes in the current cycle, we’re looking at making the following tweaks:
We’ve pushed out our proposed change to the system overhead cost that we floated in the last update, effectively removing the brick wall stopping large powers expanding whilst retaining the concept of increased effort for expanding the powerbase.
This softening of overhead costs will also take Arissa out of deficit this turn, as well as angle the game play more towards where we want it to go (less being stopped by arbitrary walls).
Alongside this, we’ll be raising up Arissa’s systems out of turmoil to match this change.
Both of these changes should be coming through very shortly.
Going forward, for the next cycle, we’re looking to simplify how overhead is calculated, applying it based on control systems rather than all exploited systems. This should hopefully make it a little easier to consider.
In addition, we’re taking a look at player action availability, to reduce the chance of Commanders unwittingly sabotaging their own power:
Currently, when a power falls into a CC deficit, although new preparation is halted, expansion still takes place for successful preparation from the previous cycle. This drives the power deeper into deficit, which is compounded by overhead costs.
So we’re going to gate expansion behind a CC wall: we’re going to prevent expansion taking place when a power is in deficit, and we’re going to prevent expansion succeeding if ownership of the system would push the power into deficit.
These changes won’t stop Commanders from having the ability to make poor or good choices (you can still expand into low value systems); it will simply stop them from compounded the quality choices (and hopefully limit the effects of any fifth column elements – Commanders that join a power simply to sabotage it).
As an aside, we will also be applying a fix to the merit system that should ensure merit decay is working as intended. So from the next cycle onwards expect that change to be active.
Past the immediate future of the current and next cycle, we’re still chewing over the concept of targeted strikes – we’ll update you folk on this when we’ve come to a decision.
---
Thanks,
Zac
Last edited:
