Hi all,
You may remember a short while ago, Lead Designer, Sandro Sammarco wanted to discuss a few areas of powerplay with the community and get you're feedback. Being the community focused gent that he is, he wanted to give a second update of some thoughts and ideas and get your feedback on them too.
So, have a read and then let us know what you think on the changes being suggested.
Once again, from a personal perspective, I just want to say that this is a really great to have the opportunity to work with the community on changes in game mechanics.
===
Overhead Change
We’re simplifying the overhead system to make it easier to work with. So first, a quick overview of how overheads currently work.
When a power controls a system, it has to pay upkeep for it each cycle. This upkeep is based on the distance of the system to the power’s home system and the population of the system.
An additional cost, called system overheads is also paid at this time.
System overheads are currently determined by the total number of systems controlled and exploited by a power. The greater this number is, the higher the system overhead cost is. So the more systems a power controls, the larger the system overhead cost it pays each cycle.
The change we’re looking to make links overheads to just the number of control systems. So in basic terms, the more control systems a power has, the higher the overhead component will be in the upkeep cost for those control systems.
Not only should this make overheads easier to understand, it also means that control systems that exploit more systems gain an clear cost benefit for upkeep, adding another dimension to consider when choosing expansion.
For those that want the actual formula:
View attachment 50847
===
Expansion Caps / Additional Data
We’re also looking to make a change to expansion. Again, first a little history. At the start of every cycle, a power claims all the CC income from exploited systems and pays out all the CC upkeep for control systems and the systems overhead cost. Remember that upkeep can be modified for each control system based on fortification and undermining.
The result is a CC balance which will be positive or negative. If the number is negative, the power is running a deficit and bad things happen; systems fall into turmoil and there’s no CC for preparation attempts.
The issue we’re looking to fix is that even if a power runs into a deficit or very close to one, successful expansion from the previous cycle can push it into the red (or sink it even further if it was already heading into deficit).
We don’t like this: running a deficit is “the big bad” in Powerplay – it’s the moment when a power truly falters. We want to slow down the growth of powers that get too large (which is why we have system overhead), but we really aren’t keen on that growth actually tearing them apart – we’d much prefer that honour to go to the machinations of rival powers through undermining, rather than from ostensibly a positive activity.
So what we’re looking to do is prevent expansion attempts from succeeding if that success would mean that the power would tip into a deficit, or if the power was in a deficit before the expansion system’s upkeep was paid.
We understand that there is a cost to this: all the hard work for an expansion is lost (although merits earned will be kept). To mitigate this issue, and because we believe having accurate data helps Commanders in Powerplay, we’re going to add some additional information:
Initially coming through as a special report in Galnet that updates automatically (but assuming things go well, we’ll consider integrating it into the Powerplay interface), we’ll deliver statistics showing predicted CC balances for all powers at the start of their next cycle.
This report will take into account the current balance, the modified cost of upkeep - via fortification / undermining - and the cost of ongoing expansions assuming they will succeed, and display an estimated prediction for the start of the next cycle.
This should give everybody the ability to see if current expansions are at risk of failing: if you see the predicted balance for your power is negative you know that there won’t be enough CC to cover some or all of your expansions, so fortification (if available) should be the order of the day.
We think these changes are better than the far more deadly result of having expansion force a power into turmoil, and give Commanders additional information on which to base decisions.
You may remember a short while ago, Lead Designer, Sandro Sammarco wanted to discuss a few areas of powerplay with the community and get you're feedback. Being the community focused gent that he is, he wanted to give a second update of some thoughts and ideas and get your feedback on them too.
So, have a read and then let us know what you think on the changes being suggested.
Once again, from a personal perspective, I just want to say that this is a really great to have the opportunity to work with the community on changes in game mechanics.
===
Overhead Change
We’re simplifying the overhead system to make it easier to work with. So first, a quick overview of how overheads currently work.
When a power controls a system, it has to pay upkeep for it each cycle. This upkeep is based on the distance of the system to the power’s home system and the population of the system.
An additional cost, called system overheads is also paid at this time.
System overheads are currently determined by the total number of systems controlled and exploited by a power. The greater this number is, the higher the system overhead cost is. So the more systems a power controls, the larger the system overhead cost it pays each cycle.
The change we’re looking to make links overheads to just the number of control systems. So in basic terms, the more control systems a power has, the higher the overhead component will be in the upkeep cost for those control systems.
Not only should this make overheads easier to understand, it also means that control systems that exploit more systems gain an clear cost benefit for upkeep, adding another dimension to consider when choosing expansion.
For those that want the actual formula:
View attachment 50847
===
Expansion Caps / Additional Data
We’re also looking to make a change to expansion. Again, first a little history. At the start of every cycle, a power claims all the CC income from exploited systems and pays out all the CC upkeep for control systems and the systems overhead cost. Remember that upkeep can be modified for each control system based on fortification and undermining.
The result is a CC balance which will be positive or negative. If the number is negative, the power is running a deficit and bad things happen; systems fall into turmoil and there’s no CC for preparation attempts.
The issue we’re looking to fix is that even if a power runs into a deficit or very close to one, successful expansion from the previous cycle can push it into the red (or sink it even further if it was already heading into deficit).
We don’t like this: running a deficit is “the big bad” in Powerplay – it’s the moment when a power truly falters. We want to slow down the growth of powers that get too large (which is why we have system overhead), but we really aren’t keen on that growth actually tearing them apart – we’d much prefer that honour to go to the machinations of rival powers through undermining, rather than from ostensibly a positive activity.
So what we’re looking to do is prevent expansion attempts from succeeding if that success would mean that the power would tip into a deficit, or if the power was in a deficit before the expansion system’s upkeep was paid.
We understand that there is a cost to this: all the hard work for an expansion is lost (although merits earned will be kept). To mitigate this issue, and because we believe having accurate data helps Commanders in Powerplay, we’re going to add some additional information:
Initially coming through as a special report in Galnet that updates automatically (but assuming things go well, we’ll consider integrating it into the Powerplay interface), we’ll deliver statistics showing predicted CC balances for all powers at the start of their next cycle.
This report will take into account the current balance, the modified cost of upkeep - via fortification / undermining - and the cost of ongoing expansions assuming they will succeed, and display an estimated prediction for the start of the next cycle.
This should give everybody the ability to see if current expansions are at risk of failing: if you see the predicted balance for your power is negative you know that there won’t be enough CC to cover some or all of your expansions, so fortification (if available) should be the order of the day.
We think these changes are better than the far more deadly result of having expansion force a power into turmoil, and give Commanders additional information on which to base decisions.
Last edited:
