Powerplay List of desired powerplay features.

[DemiserofD]

To be honest I'd rather do away with the complex maths and simply borrow from the BGS in that expansions do not have an attached value other than the expansion making that power bigger. If everywhere was a control system you can then expand how you feel rather than being tied to maths, and powers could be crushed back to one system. It would also make introducing new powers easier (if that ever happened).

I can see your point, but I'm concerned that starts to be TOO much like BGS.

The math doesn't need to be inscrutable to still be enjoyably complex. Over the weekend, I played a lot of Dominoes with my niece; at first, we played where you played on any matching domino, and the first player to run out of dominoes won. It was really boring, because the amount of meaningful choices was limited, and in the end, the winner seemed mostly determined by luck.

Then I found a different set of rules; if all the ends of the dominoes added up to a multiple of five, you got that many points, and you played multiple games to 250. Suddenly things became much more tactical and interesting.

By making the game MORE complex, it became more fun. The key was that the rules were simple enough to be easily understood, yet complex enough to give room for meaningful choice.

The current system is way too complex, but in unenjoyable ways. I'm concerned your proposed system wouldn't be complex enough, though perhaps slightly more enjoyable as a consequence.

Ideally it'd be somewhere in-between.

 

[Danieros]

Because weighting systems works. Bad systems are much, much harder to prep and expand. Do the same (but in reverse) for bad system voting (i.e. low cost of votes to shed bad systems) and you have to work much harder to screw it up.

I'm fed up of having to self turmoil. Its stupid. Its like saying the EU needed to descend into anarchy just so the UK could leave. Voting at least allows you to shed systems you don't like without having to bring your power to its knees to do so, meaning you are not having to spend two weeks attacking yourself (having to pledge to someone else), or getting other powers to attack you. You may love it, but for me I'd rather be attacking someone else and not shooting my own legs.

You don't have to attack yourself is what I've been saying, you'll be attacking someone else and not caring about those bad systems. You implement those two things rather than simplifying the turmoil order and you still have the completely abusable by 5c/red teaming turmoils. Plus abusing the vote itself - getting attacked? Just vote a system off to protect the ones you want.

It's going to be incredibly dismotivating spending week(s) attacking a power to have them defend themselves by simply clicking "vote system off" at the UI.

 

[Danieros]

Frankly I'd rather remove the possibility of having negative systems in the first place. NO system should actively hurt the power to own it. Punishment should come via hostile powers taking the system away, not via 5c agents nuking them from the inside.

What if you removed upkeep entirely, and replaced it with, just off the top of my head, a bonus when you caused an enemy system to be lost? This would combine with the higher fortification requirements for more distant systems to create constant inward pressure on the power from other powers seeking the bonuses from taking systems.

You'd need something besides taking systems to actually spend your CC on, of course. Something worth fighting for. That way powers are also constantly pushing outwards, too. The conflict between inwards and outwards pressure would create the limit on power size on the large end, while the inverse would become true on very close systems, which would be nearly impossible to lose

In an ideal world, you'd even have adjacent systems supporting each other in a vaguely dominoes manner. Like, if you have a coherent front, your system is easier to fortify. If you have a gap in your lines, you create a point of weakness that might be exploited to take another system that might cause weakness in another, creating a sort of cascade failure. Kinda like checkers in 3d. Jump, Jump, Jump.

Unfortunately this is veering towards a total rework quite rapidly...

Yes, bad systems as a concept itself shouldn't be in the game. But that is a matter of upkeep/overhead being the same whether a sphere has 1 system or 30, no scaling at all. Which is why part of why I'm talking about improving the turmoil list instead of adding weighing/voting out, it's at least a middle ground in which you get rid of bad systems and also make the attacking part simpler and more interesting (turmoil). Rather than devoting dev time to features solely dedicated to what shouldn't even exist in the first place (bad systems).

Distant systems already have high fortification requirements, plus the whole uphill battle when you first expand into them.

I totally agree with having something for a power's excess CC. Could be not just for the power itself, but also to improve personal rewards from the ratings. A CC-rich power could give you a richer payment, for example. This way you might want to attack powers at least to reduce their CC, since the extreme scenario (turmoil) may not always be possible.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You don't have to attack yourself is what I've been saying, you'll be attacking someone else and not caring about those bad systems. You implement those two things rather than simplifying the turmoil order and you still have the completely abusable by 5c/red teaming turmoils. Plus abusing the vote itself - getting attacked? Just vote a system off to protect the ones you want.

It's going to be incredibly dismotivating spending week(s) attacking a power to have them defend themselves by simply clicking "vote system off" at the UI.

Weighting sorts that out- if it takes x50 the votes to get rid of the best system, its not going to happen.

As a bonus, it guides players to 'good' moves automatically.

Plus, you can't vote yourself to victory for long, because the system is freed, making it fair game.

EDIT: is it even possible to change the turmoil order? You don't want it so every time a power is turmoiled its biased towards losing bad systems (dependent on the defender fortifying mind).

 

[Rubbernuke]

I can see your point, but I'm concerned that starts to be TOO much like BGS.

The math doesn't need to be inscrutable to still be enjoyably complex. Over the weekend, I played a lot of Dominoes with my niece; at first, we played where you played on any matching domino, and the first player to run out of dominoes won. It was really boring, because the amount of meaningful choices was limited, and in the end, the winner seemed mostly determined by luck.

Then I found a different set of rules; if all the ends of the dominoes added up to a multiple of five, you got that many points, and you played multiple games to 250. Suddenly things became much more tactical and interesting.

By making the game MORE complex, it became more fun. The key was that the rules were simple enough to be easily understood, yet complex enough to give room for meaningful choice.

The current system is way too complex, but in unenjoyable ways. I'm concerned your proposed system wouldn't be complex enough, though perhaps slightly more enjoyable as a consequence.

Ideally it'd be somewhere in-between.

Its similar to the BGS but not the same- if anything it adds more flesh to the way the BGS handles expansions.

Its like that idea I had earlier- preparing is conceptually similar to now (i.e. you have a list of things to smuggle in to set things in motion)- expansion is automatic when you reach those levels, and automatically enters a war state if an enemy breaks that down (then your influence on that system is gone).

In the end it has to be simple so anyone can understand it, and that it puts the onus on the day to day flying to do it.

 

[Danieros]

Weighting sorts that out- if it takes x50 the votes to get rid of the best system, its not going to happen.

As a bonus, it guides players to 'good' moves automatically.

Plus, you can't vote yourself to victory for long, because the system is freed, making it fair game.

EDIT: is it even possible to change the turmoil order? You don't want it so every time a power is turmoiled its biased towards losing bad systems (dependent on the defender fortifying mind).

Are we still going to have overheads? Because if so, any power below the overhead ceiling can just vote anything off to gain per system CC, or vote dozens of things off so you can have very little overheads to go very aggressive since your overhead per system will be like 10-20 CC versus a bigger power and its 62.

Even if not, if a power expands a weapon on you, you now have a move from simply voting that system off rather than eating the CC loss. I don't think this should be a choice since this could be a greater operation being done and you simply stop it with an UI click, and likely re-allocate into a better system to fight it off.

Having the turmoil solely based on the "base income" stat (and priority to self-contested CC first) makes it completely independent from fortification/undermined states. These can already be easily disrupted by 5c forts or red teams making sure bad systems are fortified/undermined. You'll tune the turmoils with weapons instead.

 

[DemiserofD]

I think there's probably a simple solution to this, you just need to change the way the board is organized. I've long found it odd that Powers tend to form a bunch of disconnected bubbles of influence, rather than cohesive empires.

Imagine systems bubbles of influence as cubes, with six sides. Upkeep is removed entirely, and replaced with defensibility. For the purposes of demonstration, I'll just draw four sides, but imagine there's a top and a bottom, too.

Now here, you can see three circles; the green is with a beneficial BGS faction, the yellow is with a neutral BGS faction, and the red is with a negative BGS faction. You have potential systems on all four sides.

Here, we see what happens if the left system is also claimed. Because the two are adjacent and touching, it reinforces the strength of the central system against attack, indicated by the double circle.

Now, a hostile team manages to convert the system to a neutral BGS faction. However, that still leaves the radius large enough to be in contact with the supporting system. Its strength is weakened, but not dramatically.

But what if they manage to turn it completely against the Power? Suddenly things get a great deal worse. Not only is the power substantially more vulnerable by default, but the radius decreases enough that it loses contact with supporting systems, leaving it perilously vulnerable to attack!

Now, lets go back to the starting condition again. You've got a system with a strong BGS presence, supported by an adjacent system. Normally, a very challenging target to attack! But the enemy, knowing this, chooses to move directly adjacent to the system, weakening their relative presence. As you can see, at the contact point, the reinforcement from the other adjacent system is removed, leaving only the default defenses.

This makes for an easily understandable yet relatively complex system of move and counter-move, trying to create vulnerabilities or leverage strengths.

Lastly, what about that little star on the side? In the current system, taking a star so nearby like that would be a terrible decision, as it would be worth very little AND cost you a great deal. Lets take a look.

As you can see, the result is...absolutely nothing. Because upkeep has been removed, the star costs nothing, but it also GIVES nothing. However, in taking it, the Power opens itself up to being attacked there, for no benefit, and doubles the amount of fortification they may need to do to keep both systems. A wise Power would let that system lapse. (A potential way it could work is, if an attacking power causes the system to fall, they get all the Fortification that was dedicated to that system. This handily avoids the potential for collusion, as well.)

With upkeep and CC and overheads largely decoupled from system ownership, there would be no need for convoluted math around losing systems, they could just be fought over directly. Power size would be kept in check by the opposing Powers, which would be rewarded for causing other factions to lose a system, which should probably be weighted against the larger powers. If the smallest power causes the largest power to lose a system, then they should get a huge dose of CC to do with as they please, ideally for fun Power-related stuff like Fleets or Invasions or Assassinations or whatever else.

At this point each individual point of conflict is relatively simple, with at most six systems to consider for any given system, plus BGS states, but since each system would also interlink with each other system in the Power, there would also be great potential for complexity. After all, losing one system could cause a huge instability in a large power, so it would need to be built with redundancy in mind, all while avoiding unnecessary fortification.

That's what's needed; a mix of simplicity and complexity. Simple enough for the average player to understand instantly, complex enough to fight over for years.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Because if so, any power below the overhead ceiling can just vote anything off to gain per system CC, or vote dozens of things off so you can have very little overheads to go very aggressive since your overhead per system will be like 10-20 CC versus a bigger power and its 62.

Even if not, if a power expands a weapon on you, you now have a move from simply voting that system off rather than eating the CC loss. I don't think this should be a choice since this could be a greater operation being done and you simply stop it with an UI click, and likely re-allocate into a better system to fight it off.

Having the turmoil solely based on the "base income" stat (and priority to self-contested CC first) makes it completely independent from fortification/undermined states. These can already be easily disrupted by 5c forts or red teams making sure bad systems are fortified/undermined. You'll tune the turmoils with weapons instead.

Are we still going to have overheads?

To be honest these ideas we are talking about require entire ideas around them, as they can't really be put in on their own.

In my Powerplay, weaponised expansions would be impossible (since weighting would make them impossible) but uncapped UM would allow rivals to attack powers best systems directly. Since this can be quite brutal, voting things away for CC would not be such a bad idea since you'll be trading direct blows.

In the end, what I don't want is what we have now in Powerplay, where the general topography of systems rarely changes, and rivals can't be daring.

 

[DemiserofD]

In the end, what I don't want is what we have now in Powerplay, where the general topography of systems rarely changes, and rivals can't be daring.

The trouble is, that's not caused by the fortification or expansion or turmoil systems, it's caused by the game board staying the same.

I once played a game of Risk(a game I see as being pretty close to Powerplay) that lasted for something like 8 hours, because eventually we reached a stalemate point where neither side could conclusively defeat the other, even after getting hundreds of armies from cards and sweeping across the map. And risk is a game that's fundamentally winnable!

Elite has no win condition. Inevitably you'll reach a point of stagnation, so long as the board remains unchanged. The only way to prevent that is to periodically change the board. Even then, you'll only have a limited amount of time before it reorganizes into a new stable configuration.

That's why I'm a proponent of periodic objectives.

The other alternatives don't offer much in the way of good possibilities. For example, consider if Powers could be destroyed; it would allow one large power to wipe out all other powers. New powers, lacking the powerbase to fight, would likewise be immediately wiped out, and it would reach a point of stagnancy with one power ruling everything.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The trouble is, that's not caused by the fortification or expansion or turmoil systems, it's caused by the game board staying the same.

I once played a game of Risk(a game I see as being pretty close to Powerplay) that lasted for something like 8 hours, because eventually we reached a stalemate point where neither side could conclusively defeat the other, even after getting hundreds of armies from cards and sweeping across the map. And risk is a game that's fundamentally winnable!

Elite has no win condition. Inevitably you'll reach a point of stagnation, so long as the board remains unchanged. The only way to prevent that is to periodically change the board. Even then, you'll only have a limited amount of time before it reorganizes into a new stable configuration.

That's why I'm a proponent of periodic objectives.

The other alternatives don't offer much in the way of good possibilities. For example, consider if Powers could be destroyed; it would allow one large power to wipe out all other powers. New powers, lacking the powerbase to fight, would likewise be immediately wiped out, and it would reach a point of stagnancy with one power ruling everything.

I'd like periodic objectives, but for me it goes back to a really old thought I had that CGs were fought by powers and that whoever wins sets the powers bonus over a defined area of the bubble. So maybe one day its Archon v Antal, and whoever wins grants a bonus. In this case if Deliane won, every system within a set distance the security is swtiched off and piracy is rampant.

 

[DemiserofD]

Another thing that I think should probably be changed is the interface between Powers and BGS in the BGS direction. It seems like BGS mostly serves to help the Powers, but the opposite way, being in a Power only seems to make BGS easier, not better.

I find this the opposite of compelling gameplay. It basically means that if you run up against, say, Aisling in BGS, you're guaranteed a loss, because every 1 of their players is worth 2 of yours. I'd MUCH rather see there be actual, tangible benefits that give people a reason to fight to have their faction be in the lead, rather than just guarantee their victory.

Unfortunately, that runs into the problem of being unable to really 'pledge' to a BGS faction, so any benefits would be universal. This results in the BGS faction that benefits the majority ALWAYS being in control, which, again, is pretty boring. It has other negative effects, like Anarchy factions always being at the bottom of influence unless consciously supported by constant effort by players.

 

[Tarkus Venius]

I’d like to see the old idea brought back regarding what governments AMD systems are favorable for triggers.

1. Only control systems themselves should count for triggers.

2. Any same-superpower governments count for powerplay triggers. Any Empire for Empire, any Fed for Winters/Hudson.

There are a lot of non-powerplay PMFs that want to expand and just play the game to have fun. But they can’t because of sphere triggers and arguments with powerplay groups. Enough of this already, fix this.

This will also make it easier for one power to attack the UM and forting triggers of another.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Although it would mean chaos for some ( ) I'd always fancied favourability based on the state, rather than the gov type.

So- you could have any gov type and fort triggers were based on the happy / sad / angry % of a system. It would also allow for triggers to be more granular in that rather than an almost binary unfavourable / neutral / favourable you could have it go up or down based on population, or state type (so civil liberty drops fort trigger, lockdown greatly increases it).

 

[Half-Lock]

bump