Will we ever get the Power play revamp we deserve?

[Rubbernuke]

If you are going to uncap undermining, I do think you definitely need a substantial reworking of the benefits of power play. It's my firm opinion that the current state of powers exist largely for lack of opposition, rather than for any real reason to exist. If the current model continues, only with offense and defense flipped, then all that will happen is the opposite of what we've seen until now; namely, Powers will shrink and Shrink indefinitely.

But surely thats the point- large powers are there because they are never challenged when they should be on the alert. Instead they hide behind maths and stacked odds.

I rather like the idea of being able to spend CC on other things, like stronger NPCs. It would give it a very Galactic Conquest vibe. Anyone ever play that, back in Star Wars Battlefront II?

Its a nice idea, but you have to then rely on more blind voting when in reality this should be happening anyway in SC. You also can't make opposition NPCs stronger in CZs since not all powers expand in the same way.

UM is possibly a way to apply this- but then you have to make a compromise somewhere else (so that powers don't just use this over and over).

Honestly, a lot could be drawn from that game mode when it comes to power play. For example, you had to buy fleets in order to attack your opponent.

And this is the problem- Powerplay is about like minded commanders individually supporting a cause directly. In the end its players directly doing the work and not indirectly.

In fact... That makes for an interesting idea. What if an attacking power could spend some of their CC in order to uncap the undermining efforts?

I'm not sure about that one. Its kind of penalising attackers twice, once via CC and again via having to do the attack. If anything it should be the reverse, where you spend CC to make UM totals higher but sacrifice your 'pool' of CC.

 

[DemiserofD]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever that game mode in Battlefront? If not, the reference won't make much sense.

Because, in that game mode, while you targeted things with your fleets, you had to actually fight the battle yourself. Your enemy had the choice between engaging your Fleet directly in space, or allowing you to attack the planet's surface , so the fight took place there instead. And you could buy any number of things with your points - functionally CC in this example- to help you either defend that point, or attack something else.

The issue I have with your approach, is that you seemingly want it to be distinguished from bgs, but your approach remains very much focused on the individual player. One player can fortify or undermine a system entirely on their own. In all honesty , I would say that modifying bgs is actually more difficult and more of a team activity than PowerPlay currently is.

Achieving coherence is another one of those fundamental problems with power play. It's hard enough getting people to understand things they are voting on in real life, things that will affect them in fundamental ways, let alone a game that will have little long-term effect on them personally. Democracy only works if the people involved care enough to figure out what's going on.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever that game mode in Battlefront? If not, the reference won't make much sense.

Because, in that game mode, while you targeted things with your fleets, you had to actually fight the battle yourself. Your enemy had the choice between engaging your Fleet directly in space, or allowing you to attack the planet's surface , so the fight took place there instead. And you could buy any number of things with your points - functionally CC in this example- to help you either defend that point, or attack something else.

The issue I have with your approach, is that you seemingly want it to be distinguished from bgs, but your approach remains very much focused on the individual player. One player can fortify or undermine a system entirely on their own. In all honesty , I would say that modifying bgs is actually more difficult and more of a team activity than PowerPlay currently is.

Achieving coherence is another one of those fundamental problems with power play. It's hard enough getting people to understand things they are voting on in real life, things that will affect them in fundamental ways, let alone a game that will have little long-term effect on them personally. Democracy only works if the people involved care enough to figure out what's going on.

On the face of it I'd love it- what makes me cringe a bit is voting with CC consequences which I know is inviting disaster. It would be like playing Civ with a hundred other people all at the same time and given the choice I'd rather have less things to vote over than more. Now, if any of these choices was net positive (i.e. not 5Cable) I'd have no hesitation and give the thumbs up. If this acted like an extra where you could deploy a megaship that weakened a specific systems defences for attack I'd love it.

In some ways the BGS is more tricky, as you are capped each day (unlike Powerplay) and you have a wider choice of ways to mess others up and identify. But in others its harder, mainly down to encountering other rival pledges- in Powerplay you have a few simple tasks made complex by other players, in the BGS its the reverse with lots of little jobs adding up with little lost if you get destroyed.

 

[DemiserofD]

It seems like every good suggestion gets inevitably throttled by the garotte of 5c.

The more I think about it, the more I think that 5c is really just the natural result of trying to use complete democracy in a system it was never meant for.

There's a reason every military organization in the world has a leader with more or less supreme authority. They need that power in order to make tough decisions; tough decisions that may have short-term consequences, but which will help in the long term.

Every suggestion thus far to fix 5c involves punishing players for making seemingly bad decisions, or prohibiting these bad decisions entirely. But you need the ability to make these seemingly bad decisions, or all strategy and tactics goes right out the window. A game with only good decisions isn't the game at all , it's a clicking simulator.

The problem has nothing to do with whether or not these decisions are bad or good, the problem has to do with allowing anyone to make them.

Let's face it: most people don't like making tough decisions. So, maybe the real solution to this problem isn't anything to do with punishment or reward, but rather, diverting the issue into the hands of a representative.

An elected ruling Council may be the solution.

 

[CrowingOne]

PP will be a mess until they at the very least move it into open only. It is a PvP endgame without PvP, currently. At the very least, if they moved PP to only be in effect in open and upped the rewards a bit for PP participation, we'd see new life. 95% of the issues with PP are because of the wildly low-risk private/solo groups. How can you have conflict when you'll never even SEE an enemy? Move PP to open and you would see legit wars over systems.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It seems like every good suggestion gets inevitably throttled by the garotte of 5c.

The more I think about it, the more I think that 5c is really just the natural result of trying to use complete democracy in a system it was never meant for.

There's a reason every military organization in the world has a leader with more or less supreme authority. They need that power in order to make tough decisions; tough decisions that may have short-term consequences, but which will help in the long term.

Every suggestion thus far to fix 5c involves punishing players for making seemingly bad decisions, or prohibiting these bad decisions entirely. But you need the ability to make these seemingly bad decisions, or all strategy and tactics goes right out the window. A game with only good decisions isn't the game at all , it's a clicking simulator.

The problem has nothing to do with whether or not these decisions are bad or good, the problem has to do with allowing anyone to make them.

Let's face it: most people don't like making tough decisions. So, maybe the real solution to this problem isn't anything to do with punishment or reward, but rather, diverting the issue into the hands of a representative.

An elected ruling Council may be the solution.

Decentralised Powerplay would be fine if no move had value. 5C works because moves can be both good and bad. Compare that to the BGS and no expansion is bad since there is no value attached to it.

Powerplay was designed so that 5C bumps would be drowned out by the majority doing the right thing, but since the population is low bad choices are exponentially more influential. Naive thinking really

The other irony is that if enough good choices are available and bad choices are effectively blocked (like with System CC weighting) uncapped UM makes sense because then the focus falls on acquisition (the fun bit) and the CC a formality. That does not answer why someone should fight though- my thinking is that FD ned to look at that first otherwise there is nothing or no reason for people to engage.