Welcome to Powerplay 2.0. This is the most comprehensive rework of Powerplay I've ever written, or seen. Clocking in at over 6300 words, it's very long, and very detailed. Rest assured, the experienced Powerplay can skip much of it, as I've added a great deal of detail to help those less familiar with Powerplay to understand the various concepts as they go.
If all you're interested in is a TLDR, I've put one at the bottom. However, I believe every detail of this post is important, since fixing Powerplay is a complex issue! I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a read!
Without further ado: Powerplay 2.0.
What is Politics, and why does it matter?
Politics is defined as, "The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power." To put it another way, politics is 'people fighting over meaningful power'.
In other words: Power Play.
Unfortunately, Powerplay is NOT Politics. Powerplay currently has little connection to REAL power. In fact, it is the opposite; Powerplay is a metaphorical island, isolated from almost all other aspects of gameplay. Rather than impacting everything in the game, it's cut off, separated, and isolated. Players must willingly travel there in order to participate, cutting themselves off from the rest of the game in the process.
People don't get into Politics because they want to be a politician. They get into politics because they want to exercise REAL power.
By contrast, people get into Powerplay because they want to pretend to be a politician. It's as far away from 'Power-Play' as something can be; rather than being a concentration of real power, it means actively disconnecting yourself from the majority of the game to play a fake game with imaginary currency that makes no difference.
If there’s to be any hope of long-term success of Powerplay, people need real, tangible reasons to engage with it. To actively fight for their power; not just pledge, get their modules, and leave.
How do you make players care about Powerplay? By attracting them with real, meaningful power.
This is a very, very long thread - at last count, over 6000 words - so here's a brief summary of the contents for those who are less patient.
Subtopic Summary
All this is a little complicated, but I’ll explain, I promise.
Why do Powers fight other Powers? Why do players choose to fight for their Power?
This is an issue that has plagued Powerplay since the beginning. To many players, simply fighting over territory is not sufficient justification for competition. This is where the difference between Power, Politics and Politicians comes into play. Players need a reason to fight, and that reason should be real power.
This Power will be bonuses.
Powerplay currently has bonuses, but many of these bonuses are active by default, regardless of participation(such as active bonuses to trade or exploration profits)which does little to encourage participation or competition. Other bonuses are either worthless, or unreachable due to the low ranking of a Power. If Zemina Torval players, for example, want to get their power to first place in the galaxy, it would take months of constant effort to reach it, the majority of which would be spent with absolutely nothing to show for it, and even with said effort, most likely such a goal is impossible. This leads to low-ranked powers withering and dying, while large powers grow stagnant. These powers need a reason to compete, even when first place is unreachable.
These bonuses would replace the existing bonuses(IE, the bonuses for Rank 5, for being in the top 3 powers, etc). Powers could still buy the exact same bonuses, but they could also choose to buy something else, allowing for a greater variety of choices, and allowing powers with bad or undesired bonuses(for example, bonuses to rare goods profits) to swap them for better ones.
Importantly, high-ranked Powers would still have more bonuses overall, due to their high rank. However, with this new system, even low-ranked Powers will have a reason to fight, as every additional bit of effort allows them to purchase additional bonuses for those in their team.
Here is just a short example of the sorts of bonuses Powers could purchase. Many of them are similar to existing bonuses for Powers, but crucially, allowing Powers to pick and choose based on their playerbase’s preferences.
The general theme is that powers can choose to buy their standard bonus, or they can swap it for something else, which may be weaker, but still preferred for one reason or another. Some bonuses could be purchased multiple times, especially the bonuses previously based on galactic ranking. This will likely result in many Powers choosing some things while neglecting others(IE, cheaper ammo will likely not be chosen very often) but that’s not because the system is broken, but rather because those bonuses are inadequate. If no Powers are buying a certain bonus, that would be a good reason for Fdev to buff those bonuses, and they would gradually evolve over time towards a more balanced state.
The Power itself, too, would have a vote,(by which I mean, the Individual; Zachary Hudson or Arissa Lavigny Duval, and so on) which would always be in keeping with their native policies. This would not be a massive effect, but would mean that lacking player input, the power would gradually revert to a ‘default’ state, and players would be encouraged to join powers that match their personal ethos, more than changing the power to suit themselves.
Overall, Powers would tend towards bonuses similar to their current versions, only with the potential for improvement or evolution based on the needs of the Power. Zemina Torval would still be the Power focused on Mining(due to her enhanced bonuses along those lines), but she could get rid of the useless Rare Goods bonus, swapping it for a different bonus which may be smaller statistically, but still more useful to the players on the whole.
But how will these bonuses be purchased?
Using CC, or Command Capital.
Command Capital. What is CC used for, and why is it a problem?
Command Capital, or CC, is a Powerplay ‘commodity’ used for 'buying' expansions into new systems. These systems, once bought, then provide CC.
It should be immediately apparent why this cycle, and therefore CC as a whole, is a problem. CC’s only purpose is for acquiring more systems, but the only reason to get more systems is to get more CC. Furthermore, each additional system costs more than the last. Therefore, powers acquire CC, and systems, one after another, until reaching an inevitable point of stagnation. Many of the larger Powers have been stuck at this point for years.
Since acquiring CC is the primary focus for Powerplay, and CC quickly reaches a point of stagnation, CC only serves to discourage many players. The pursuit of CC should be a powerful motivator for players to engage with the game. CC should be used for profound impacts on the game. Things players want to fight for, driving players to acquire more systems, or fight, to sustain these benefits. CC is the reward for Powerplay, and therefore CC should be the driving force behind Powerplay, towards conflict, not towards stagnation.
But before we can do that, we need to take a step back. The first step of fixing CC is getting rid of Upkeep(and, by proxy, Overhead).
What is Upkeep? Briefly, Controlled systems cost CC to maintain. The further from a Power’s home system, the more CC it costs. The more systems a Power controls, the more CC new systems cost. Eventually, Powers reach a point where most new Systems cost more than they give. For ease of discussion, all of this I group under the singular banner of ‘Upkeep’.
Upkeep is a bad system. Powerplay is about competition against other players, but upkeep instead turns the game into players against the game itself. Many players are not interested in fighting endlessly against the game itself, just to hold their current position. Players join competitive game modes to compete against other players, not against a brick wall of gameplay mechanics.
Even worse, upkeep opens the door to so-called 'Fifth Column' attacks. These occur because it is possible to make moves that cause more harm than good. Since any player can join a Power, these attacks can happen at any time, and are very difficult to stop; you can’t just start killing your own team! Fifth Column attacks can be the most devastating attacks a Power can face; losing a good system might take a few weeks to correct, but taking the wrong system can take months, or years. Worse, 5C attacks require heavy metagaming to prevent, often doing bizarre things like attacking one's own power, or sacrificing good expansions to prevent bad ones. This draws players out of the game, breaking the suspension of disbelief, distracting players from competing with enemy powers, and instead forcing them to fight with the game itself.
But most importantly, upkeep is not necessary.
The primary purpose of upkeep is to prevent Powers from expanding indefinitely and quickly covering every available system, but this can be achieved in other ways. I will elaborate on this below, but to briefly sum up; reward Powers more for reinforcing existing systems than for taking new ones, and at the same time, reward powers for capturing enemy systems, ensuring Powers focus on each other, and the conflict, more than on mindless expansion.
Upkeep should be removed entirely. There should be no such thing as a 'bad' expansion; the worst case scenario should be a new system that doesn't give any CC; even then, it might be valuable for strategic or tactical purposes. Removing the possibility of bad moves will heavily reduce or eliminate 5C attacks, because sabotage will become functionally impossible.
An additional benefit is, because there are now no downsides to taking additional systems, Preparations and Expansions could be removed from any voting process altogether. If an individual player chooses to expand to a system without significant benefit to the Power as a whole, there’s no harm in allowing them to do so, and if the rest of the power doesn’t support them, no voting against them is necessary; all they need to do is refuse to actively help them, allowing their efforts to be easily captured by an enemy power. Since this is one of the most confusing aspects to newer Powerplayers, this will significantly open the door to the less experienced, and get more people playing Powerplay.
Now that players are encouraged to gather as much CC as possible, the first response players will have is to expand their Power to every system they can. Since Upkeep has been removed, there is also no downside to doing this. Players need a reason to focus their attention on their existing systems, rather than focusing on unchecked expansion.
The first part of this is system improvements.
When first claimed, Systems would provide a relatively small amount of CC income. As this System is fortified over time, the CC income of the system would increase, as the Power entrenches its position, and gains influence over local factions.
Currently, what is Fortification? Fortification is the main way that Players currently acquire Merits and play Powerplay. Players collect Merits at their Power’s home base, and deliver them to various systems around the bubble. Currently, the result of fully Fortifying a System is the removal of Upkeep for that week. Since Upkeep no longer exists, this process would be replaced. Instead, hauling sufficient Merits to a system would cause the gradual improvement of that system, and a slow increase of its CC income.
A poor system could never become as profitable as a good system, but it could still become profitable. On the flipside, fortifying a good system could provide more CC than taking a new poor system.
This helps to keep rampant expansion in check, but it still lacks a solid reason to fight, and would eventually result in every system in the bubble being taken, so an additional factor is required: Looting.
While Improvements will help to slow the rate of rampant expansion, it alone won’t check it entirely. Powers will always choose to expand, rather than fight, because it will be easier. To encourage Powers to fight before claiming every possible system, Powers will be rewarded for successfully undermining enemy systems.
However, it’s important to recognize a critical aspect of the removal of Upkeep; since taking a system cannot harm the power anymore, this means that Powers cannot go into Turmoil. A new system for losing systems is required. This system, however, can be much simpler than before.
Turmoil was always somewhat unintuitive. The way it currently works is, when a Power doesn’t have enough CC to sustain its systems, it loses the most expensive system under its control, and then the next, and so on until enough CC is left to sustain the rest. This can lead to confusing results; a Power could be attacked on one frontier, lose, and yet rather than losing the attacked system, lose a system on the complete opposite side of their territory, giving that system to an entirely different power than the one currently attacking. This can be unintuitive and unsatisfying, especially for newer players, to whom the results seem completely disconnected from their actions.
With the new lack of upkeep, this could be simplified substantially. When a system is undermined, that system, and that system alone, is put at risk. If it is undermined more than it is fortified, that system is lost.
But this still raises the question of, why? Why attack another power at all?
Looting is the answer.
Whenever Powers cause an enemy Power to lose a system, the attacking power(s) gain an instant bonus of CC, depending on the value of the attacked system. Essentially, the long-term profits of the system are taken as an immediate CC bonus, with the rewards distributed to each attacking Power based on the percentage of total undermining each attacking Power did.
For example, if Archon Delaine and Zemina Torval attack a Zachary Hudson system which gives him 25 CC a week, it might be worth 100CC in loot. If Archon players do 75% of the work, and Torval players do 25% of the work, then Archon Delaine will immediately receive 75CC at the end of the week, and Torval receiving 25 CC, while Hudson loses the system, and all accumulated Fortification.
This will prevent rampant over-expansion, since hostile Powers will always be searching for a weak point to attack, to gain an immediate bonus. Smaller Powers would generally be better off attacking larger Powers and fortifying their own systems, rather than expanding exponentially. However, it also leaves room for Powers to expand as their playerbase increases. If more players enter Powerplay, the Powers could expand to compensate.
Even this, however, may not be enough to fully counteract a single dominant Power from taking complete control. As one final aspect to prevent unlimited expansion, there would be:
One final balance factor is necessary. Right now, as a Power expands to more and more systems, they face increasingly massive Overhead, heavily limiting which systems they can expand into, but doing so in a dull and uninspired way, and even worse, in a way that is completely disconnected from player effort. Powers do need to be prevented from achieving runaway success and conquering the entire galaxy, but because upkeep is gone, it needs to happen in a different way. Fortunately, this way can also be more interesting and enjoyable.
Thargoids and Pirates would occasionally attack random systems, typically on the outskirts of Powers. Rather than fighting this off abstractly, via fortifying, players would instead fight it off directly, by killing the pirates or thargoids in the system.
If they fail to drive off the attack, it will mean the system will be lost. Most of the CC will go to the Pirates or Thargoids(functionally disappearing into the void), but enemy Powers who aided in the attack could also claim some for themselves, and use the opportunity to make an attack that would otherwise be impossible.
These attacks would be random. Theoretically, this would affect everyone equally, but because large Powers have the most territory to be attacked, they would generally face the brunt of attacks.
Additionally, Pirate attacks would function somewhat differently from Thargoid attacks. Pirate attacks would simply cause the system to be lost, and cause economic damage that makes the system undesirable for Powerplay for several weeks. That, however, would be the end of it.
Thargoids, by contrast, would be a more existential threat. If Thargoids are not repelled, they would expand, attacking system after system, and burning the stations in those systems, requiring sustained effort to repair. This could be a powerful way to weaken major Powers, but could also turn against the galaxy, as if the incursion is allowed to grow too large, it could become difficult to repel before spreading to other Powers! Powers would need to plan carefully and strategically to make sure they don’t end up hurting themselves in the process of hurting others.
This forces larger Powers to think strategically. It may be more effective to spend their CC on better NPC defenses against these threats, rather than attempt to drive them off purely via player effort, and it gives smaller Powers an advantageous position to attack them. It also creates incentive to form alliances and work together for the greater good. Two formerly-hostile factions might declare peace until a Thargoid incursion is dealt with, while others might attack them to gain the advantage.
Since players are now incentivized to increase the strength of the power on their own, without needing merit rewards(due to getting rewards directly from CC purchases), merit rewards no longer need to be awarded exclusively for hauling merits or undermining. Players will naturally accrue merits as they play the game, similar to ARX.
As a result, the number of votes players get(to vote for CC rewards) increases as they play the game more, and especially as they do ethos-based activities. This means that it is no longer possible to quickly farm your way to a max-rank and maximum votes, as the normal players who are just playing the game will always have more merits than an alt account only used occasionally.
With these changes, 5C should be effectively eliminated. 5C players will have less votes than the actual participating players, and even if they do manage to gain power, the worst thing a 5C player can do is vote for a less-useful bonus, and even the worst bonus is still a bonus, and still helpful.
In addition, these activities would not only reward the player with Merits, they also give a small amount of CC to the Power; not as much as claiming systems, but enough that just having more players is beneficial. This represents the players 'showing the flag', both inside and outside their territory. The reason for this is to encourage Powers to recruit new players, even those who are not directly interested in Powerplay activities.
This CC reward experiences diminishing returns, so while larger powers will get somewhat more than smaller powers, the difference won't be as massive as the difference in population. A large power would generally get this CC by default, but a small power might be incentivized to specifically task a player or group of players to go participate in a given activity, to show the flag and gain the associated CC rewards.
One aspect of Powerplay that many players don’t like is the way you need to pledge to a faction and wait four weeks to gain access to Powerplay Modules.
This is a bad mechanic; not just because of the annoyance over the time factor, but also because it encourages players to ‘shop’ among Powers, which is not good from a gameplay OR roleplay perspective. When players are encouraged to swap regularly between Powers, it weakens their connection to any particular Power, and dilutes the importance of Powerplay.
In replacement of this system, Players of ANY Power(or even of no power at all) could gain Merits for a Power, by playing inside their space, doing their aligned activities, and helping their aligned factions. For example, a player wanting Cytoscrambers would sell pirated goods to black markets inside Archon Delaine space. They would be rewarded with a small allotment of Delaine merits for doing so. Merits could be used to buy powerplay modules from specialized Powerplay tech brokers. Of course, if they have a Powerplay bounty from that faction, these brokers would become inaccessible.
This action would fortify the relevant system, directly supporting the Power in question, and earn them CC in a similar way to how Pledged players earn them CC.
The acquisition of these Merits would be balanced so that a player could buy approximately one module for several hours worth of effort(of course, this is in addition to any credits that are earned). Right now, players usually pledge for the four weeks and then buy multiple ships worth of modules; the objective is for the time investment to roughly balance out, only with more freedom in when and how to buy and use the modules. In the long term, players would actually end up spending more time getting as many modules as they want, but in the short term, the first module would become much more available. Plus, modules that are difficult to store(such as Prismatic Shields) would be much more convenient, as the player could simply acquire the Merits and store them, rather than feeling obligated to have dozens of ships and billions of credits locked up in Prismatic Shields they may never use.
This benefits the players, but also benefits the Powers, as Module Shoppers tend to haul in ways that are confusing and generally unhelpful. By making their actions directly contribute to the available CC of the Power, it guarantees that their efforts are always beneficial to the Power, justifying why they allow them to buy these modules, in exchange for their service.
Everyone wins.
A very often-requested feature of powerplay is pvp. However, there are also many players who want to participate, but don't want to pvp. The answer is a compromise; Convoys.
Every week, each Power’s home system would dispatch a series of convoys to each Controlled system, to fortify that system. This convoy would carry the equivalent of tens of thousands of merits, and would be heavily defended by NPCs. This convoy would exist exclusively in open, and the instance would be hosted by the servers themselves.They would jump from system to system, taking a short amount of time in each system(as a 'Powerplay Convoy Signal Source') before moving onto the next.
If attacked, they would be mass locked by the total hull mass of the attacking ships; the more, and larger they are, the more time would be available to kill them. Large ships tend to be more vulnerable to pvp, however, so attackers would need to strike a balance between pvp and pve effectiveness. Because these Convoys would travel at a regular(slow) speed, jumping from system to system, closer systems would be difficult for enemies to attack, since they would always be under the protection of NPCs, and would get there faster. However, if these convoys crossed uncontrolled space, or had longer distances to travel, they would become much more vulnerable. This would further encourage tactical expansion; even in the worst case, a ‘tentacle’ of controlled systems would still be better than a control system totally separated from Power space.
Each Power would have their own advantages and disadvantages, which would govern how their convoys travel, and therefore, how their Power expands. For example, Federal convoys would use Federal ships, and have more firepower, but lower jump ranges. Sirius corp would have longer jump ranges but less defenses, and so on. Regardless, when they arrive in the target system, they would rapidly disperse and dramatically fortify that system.
On the defending side, all of these ships would be considered 'winged' with Pledged players, allowing them to shoot those ships with healing beams to keep them alive. Repair Limpets would also be helpful, allowing damaged npcs to be repaired before the jump to the next system.
Fortification could still take place without this convoy, and could still be hauled in solo, but if the convoy is destroyed, the defenders will lose a significant advantage. Pvp should be valued, but not to the point of being more valuable than anyone else.
The best part about this solution is that all players must be in the same instance. If the defenders are not in the same instance as the attackers, they cannot defend the NPC ships from attack. If the attackers are not in the same instance as the defenders, they cannot attack the NPC ships. There is no way to game this system by playing with your connection.
But because it is not the only way to fortify, PVP still remains completely voluntary, and no more important than any activity, instead finally taking a place of equal value with other ways of supporting your Power.
With the above changes, we have now created a system where players are encouraged to join, and where it is better to support your own side than sabotage the enemy from within. That’s all well and good, but that alone isn’t enough; you need an actual game to play within Powerplay, as well.
Designing a functional game like this isn’t easy. It is essentially a 3d turn-based grand strategy game, each week a single turn, and each player an individual piece on a playing field larger than any other game in existence. Hundreds of board games are released each year, but only a few each decade achieve significant success, demonstrating the difficulty of creating an experience that is both innovative and enduring.
But as difficult as creating a new system is, the current system is worse. The majority of effort goes into outhauling the saboteurs in your Power, or at least outvoting them if they win. Even in the best of cases, a Power is generally voting against taking 70-80% of prospective expansions, in large part because of players hauling just for the sake of modules. The only ‘trickery’ lies in gathering tens of thousands of undermining merits and turning them in all at once.
Worse, the current system of attack and defense is completely abstracted. You don't attack a particular system, you attack the power as a whole, and hope you can cause them to fall into turmoil and lose systems. This makes it very confusing for new players, and frustratingly abstracted for older, yet less-invested players. Imagine, for comparison, if in Civilization, rather than attacking a specific city, you attacked their civilization as a whole, and if they lost, they would lose their most expensive cities first? This would feel very strange, abstracted, and unsatisfying. Or if in Age of Empires, when you were attacking your enemy’s army, rather than being able to focus down weaker enemies, you just shot vaguely at them, and after a while, their most expensive unit would die? Much of the high-level skill, tactics, and strategy, would not exist.
Most games offer the ability to attack enemies on a more tactical level; for example, in Age of Empires, you can take your enemy’s gold, preventing them from making powerful units; in Civilization, you can attack an enemy’s only Oil or Iron supply, likewise preventing them from constructing many of their powerful units. This more direct approach allows a much more expansive type of strategic and tactical gameplay, and is broadly superior to Elite’s more abstracted system.
I went over this a bit earlier, but to recap what I said in greater detail, the current system should be replaced by one much more direct, tactical, and easy to understand.
Because systems could be claimed or lost in a single week, the gameplay would be significantly faster, becoming more intense and driving greater engagement and participation. The more players can change the universe, the more they feel their own impact on it.
This alone is not nearly enough. The current ‘playing field’ does not change enough, which means the game can be ‘solved’; players can find the optimum systems to capture, and while enemy attacks may temporarily shift them, eventually, the game will become stagnant as players constantly push towards this enduring ‘ideal state’. An unchanging playing field is acceptable for games which only last a few hours or days, but the Powerplay game must be expected to endure for years, and therefore requires a greater degree of complexity. Consider games like Age of Empires or Civilization, which randomize the map each game, to ensure a diverse and interesting experience each time.
The last thing you want is for a player to leave for a year with two powers fighting over one system, only to return to find them still in the same exact fight over the same exact system, with all their effort being seemingly meaningless. This stagnation is a big part of why the game has lost the interest of many players. With this in mind, the game should also integrate other factors, such as BGS factions and states.
This would be tied into Fortification.
The objective of these changes is for players to consider the game from a strategic, geographic standpoint, not purely a statistical one. Consider, for example, Civilization; because of the way the map is designed, attacking certain Cities is more strategically viable than others. Attacking a city in the middle of a vast empire would be foolish, as the city would immediately come under attack from all sides, and would likely culture flip even if not conquered. Constructing a defensible empire is just as important as creating a powerful army, and being able to insert a tactical city in the right place can make the difference between victory and defeat.
While these aspects cannot be copied entirely, much can be drawn from the way they are implemented, and applied in a way that fits with the 3d map and universe of Elite.
Fortification currently occurs exclusively as a result of player action, and therefore certain vital systems can be undermined by surprise, even in seemingly secure locations, diminishing the importance of strategic empire planning. This is exacerbated because undermining players can remain completely concealed, even while playing in Open, since Undermining is invisible until the merits are turned in.
In the new system, Fortification could be preemptively increased by the presence of nearby controlled systems. In this case, ‘nearby’ would mean, ‘the 15ly influence bubbles of each Control system are touching’. If they touch each other, they support and reinforce each other.
Each supporting system would fortify adjacent systems, making them more difficult to attack, even without direct player action. This creates a strong impetus for developing a robust internal Power structure. This creates conflicting drives within the Power; do you focus on pure CC acquisition, at the risk of creating a poorly-defended power that will likely be raided? Or do you create a Power that is less efficient at CC generation, but which is easier to defend due to a strong network of internal fortification?
These values would need to be tested and tweaked, to find a point that is balanced and fair to each individual Power. These are just to give ideas of the tactical impact of having powers with differing tactical and strategic objectives.
Imperial and Federal systems can be fortified by up to four nearby systems, ideally of synergizing BGS factions. When fully fortified, they are very difficult to take. However, with lower amounts of fortification, they are weaker than other Power types. This encourages dense, centrally governed Powers, expanding evenly, so as to expose fewer openings to enemy attack.
Alliance, Sirius, and Grom systems can be fortified by up to three adjacent systems. When not fortified, they are stronger than unfortified Imperial or Federal systems, but when fully fortified, they are slightly weaker. This encourages a slightly looser structure, more easily expanded in thinner planes around the central Powers.
Archon Delaine and Pranav Antal systems can be fortified by up to two adjacent systems. However, they are also the strongest when unfortified, and even with just two adjacent systems, they are still relatively strong. These two are much better at having independent nodes of activity.
The objective of these different fortification approaches is to encourage each Power to look at the game in a different way, and pursue different objectives, thereby creating unique, enjoyable gameplay, as well as conflict.
On top of this, the range and power of fortification could be adjusted by the BGS factions and states within the Power. This would be similar to the current system of synergistic BGS factions. Each Power should prefer certain governments for Control systems(which would match their ethos), and other systems for Exploited systems.
The range and strength of fortification would be based on various other local factors as well, like BGS states and Happiness. A matching government will increase the range of fortification, while a hostile government will reduce the range. Low happiness in Controlled systems would reduce the range, while high happiness would increase it. Different BGS states could temporarily affect the range dramatically; a Public Holiday, for example, could dramatically increase the range, and if timed properly could make a massive difference in defense situations. By contrast, a Pirate Attack could reduce fortification range, exposing systems to attack.
As an example, Archon Delaine might prefer to have Dictatorships or Communisms as Controlled systems, but Anarchies or Patronages as Exploited systems. By having central nodes of Dictatorships surrounded by Anarchies, their systems might increase their fortification range substantially, given sufficient time to convert local BGS factions to support them. However, when they invade enemy territory which lacks this support structure, they must carefully analyze the best systems to make into the new Control system, based on distance to existing Control systems and the theoretical maximum strength of the new captured area. It may take more effort than it’s worth to convert all exploited systems to their desired BGS faction, especially if they expect the system to be captured at some point, so they may instead choose to capture a different system, one with greater short-term potential with less BGS effort. This in turn would force other powers to reorganize around them; the next time that system is recaptured, BGS factions will once again be different, resulting in the playing field shifting each time a Power moves, and a constantly shifting playing field.
The same systems can be used for attack, not just defense. While having adjacent controlled systems or synergizing BGS factions can help to fortify a system, having adjacent ENEMY systems can instead serve to weaken it. Enemy powers could take a system near the target system, and use it as a staging point for their attack. This system itself would be a vulnerable point which could easily be attacked, but would also weaken the defending system. An attacker might time the taking of a spearhead system to coincide with a nearby Exploited or supporting Control system going into Civil Unrest, causing its fortification benefits to shrink enough their benefit is removed. Combined, these could create a point of weakness through which an attack could be pressed. Alternatively, BGS systems could be weakened and caused to swap, again creating weaknesses which could then be exploited. To facilitate this, BGS wars where beneficial factions are at risk of falling would be pointed out on the galaxy map, helping players to find where they can go to fight to help their Power.
There are two primary objectives of the new system.
So, what have we created?
First off, we’ve created a system where players are encouraged to participate and compete, no matter if their Power is first place or last.
We’ve created a system that’s open to new players, yet remains interesting to old ones.
We’ve created a system with depth, strategy, and near-infinite variety, allowing indefinite gameplay.
We’ve created a system where 5C is impossible.
We’ve created a system that ties into the universe, integrating the Thargoid war and making players feel part of an ongoing narrative.
TLDR:
Whew! That was a massive document, one I've been working on for a while! While not perfect, I believe I've reached a point of diminishing returns, and I needed to post it before I burned out completely.
So, what do you think? Would you be interested in a Powerplay more like described here? Do you have any ideas for how it could be improved? Let me know!
If all you're interested in is a TLDR, I've put one at the bottom. However, I believe every detail of this post is important, since fixing Powerplay is a complex issue! I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a read!
Without further ado: Powerplay 2.0.
Prelude: Politics and Powerplay
What is Politics, and why does it matter?
Politics is defined as, "The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power." To put it another way, politics is 'people fighting over meaningful power'.
In other words: Power Play.
Unfortunately, Powerplay is NOT Politics. Powerplay currently has little connection to REAL power. In fact, it is the opposite; Powerplay is a metaphorical island, isolated from almost all other aspects of gameplay. Rather than impacting everything in the game, it's cut off, separated, and isolated. Players must willingly travel there in order to participate, cutting themselves off from the rest of the game in the process.
People don't get into Politics because they want to be a politician. They get into politics because they want to exercise REAL power.
By contrast, people get into Powerplay because they want to pretend to be a politician. It's as far away from 'Power-Play' as something can be; rather than being a concentration of real power, it means actively disconnecting yourself from the majority of the game to play a fake game with imaginary currency that makes no difference.
If there’s to be any hope of long-term success of Powerplay, people need real, tangible reasons to engage with it. To actively fight for their power; not just pledge, get their modules, and leave.
How do you make players care about Powerplay? By attracting them with real, meaningful power.
This is a very, very long thread - at last count, over 6000 words - so here's a brief summary of the contents for those who are less patient.
Subtopic Summary
- To encourage player engagement, Powers can purchase bonuses to benefit their Pledged players.
- Remove Upkeep. By removing Upkeep, 5C can be removed. Repurpose CC to buy Bonuses.
- Powers can improve Control systems to improve their CC income, encouraging them to focus on long-term strategy.
- Powers get a one-time CC bonus for capturing an enemy system, encouraging them to fight rather than fortify forever, and also helping prevent Powers from expanding indefinitely.
- Pirate and Thargoid attacks replace the Overhead system. This lets players fight directly against it, rather than abstractly countering it.
- PVP integration via Convoys. Convoys help fortify Controlled systems. Convoys generate their own instances, which can be defended or attacked. This offers a central location for meaningful pvp, without preventing solo hauling.
- Players can acquire Powerplay modules without pledging, by supporting Powers in other ways.
- Powerplay general strategy is redesigned from the current abstract statistical system, to a direct system based on proper Control System placement and maintaining supporting BGS factions.
All this is a little complicated, but I’ll explain, I promise.
Part 1: Buying Bonuses with CC (Why do powers fight?)
Why do Powers fight other Powers? Why do players choose to fight for their Power?
This is an issue that has plagued Powerplay since the beginning. To many players, simply fighting over territory is not sufficient justification for competition. This is where the difference between Power, Politics and Politicians comes into play. Players need a reason to fight, and that reason should be real power.
This Power will be bonuses.
Powerplay currently has bonuses, but many of these bonuses are active by default, regardless of participation(such as active bonuses to trade or exploration profits)which does little to encourage participation or competition. Other bonuses are either worthless, or unreachable due to the low ranking of a Power. If Zemina Torval players, for example, want to get their power to first place in the galaxy, it would take months of constant effort to reach it, the majority of which would be spent with absolutely nothing to show for it, and even with said effort, most likely such a goal is impossible. This leads to low-ranked powers withering and dying, while large powers grow stagnant. These powers need a reason to compete, even when first place is unreachable.
These bonuses would replace the existing bonuses(IE, the bonuses for Rank 5, for being in the top 3 powers, etc). Powers could still buy the exact same bonuses, but they could also choose to buy something else, allowing for a greater variety of choices, and allowing powers with bad or undesired bonuses(for example, bonuses to rare goods profits) to swap them for better ones.
Importantly, high-ranked Powers would still have more bonuses overall, due to their high rank. However, with this new system, even low-ranked Powers will have a reason to fight, as every additional bit of effort allows them to purchase additional bonuses for those in their team.
Here is just a short example of the sorts of bonuses Powers could purchase. Many of them are similar to existing bonuses for Powers, but crucially, allowing Powers to pick and choose based on their playerbase’s preferences.
- - Bounties and Fines(Double for Archon Delaine)
- + Rare Goods Profits(Double for Alliance and Torval)
- + Trade Profits(Double for Alliance)
- + All Profits (Double for Grom)
- + Exploration Data Profits(Double for Sirius Corp)
- - Ammo Synthesis Materials Cost(Double for Patreus)
- + Ammo Capacity(Double for Patreus)
- + Mining Laser Damage(Damage, not mining speed)(Double for Zemina Torval)
- + Collector Limpet Speed(Double for Zemina Torval)
- + Hatchbreaker Speed(Double for Archon Delaine)
- + Hatchbreaker Ejection Quantity(Double for Archon Delaine)
- + base shield values(not percent)(Double for Aisling Duval)
- + Bounties(Double for Arissa Duval, Hudson, and Antal)
- + Stored ship transport speed and - ship transport cost.
- Enhanced Mercenary Defensive Forces (Cheap: allied ships usually spawn with a medium-ranked non-faction escort)
- Enhanced Power Defensive Forces (Expensive: allied ships always spawn with a high-ranked faction escort, such as a Gunship, Challenger, or pair of Couriers)
- Increased System Security
- Reduced System Security
- Enhanced AX Defenses(Cheap: defensive ships are loaded with some AX weaponry)
- Heavily Enhanced AX Defenses(Expensive: defensive ships are loaded with guardian weaponry)
- Modules are no longer 'hot' when taken off wanted ships.
- etc.
The general theme is that powers can choose to buy their standard bonus, or they can swap it for something else, which may be weaker, but still preferred for one reason or another. Some bonuses could be purchased multiple times, especially the bonuses previously based on galactic ranking. This will likely result in many Powers choosing some things while neglecting others(IE, cheaper ammo will likely not be chosen very often) but that’s not because the system is broken, but rather because those bonuses are inadequate. If no Powers are buying a certain bonus, that would be a good reason for Fdev to buff those bonuses, and they would gradually evolve over time towards a more balanced state.
The Power itself, too, would have a vote,(by which I mean, the Individual; Zachary Hudson or Arissa Lavigny Duval, and so on) which would always be in keeping with their native policies. This would not be a massive effect, but would mean that lacking player input, the power would gradually revert to a ‘default’ state, and players would be encouraged to join powers that match their personal ethos, more than changing the power to suit themselves.
Overall, Powers would tend towards bonuses similar to their current versions, only with the potential for improvement or evolution based on the needs of the Power. Zemina Torval would still be the Power focused on Mining(due to her enhanced bonuses along those lines), but she could get rid of the useless Rare Goods bonus, swapping it for a different bonus which may be smaller statistically, but still more useful to the players on the whole.
But how will these bonuses be purchased?
Using CC, or Command Capital.
Part 2: CC, and Removing Upkeep.
Command Capital. What is CC used for, and why is it a problem?
Command Capital, or CC, is a Powerplay ‘commodity’ used for 'buying' expansions into new systems. These systems, once bought, then provide CC.
It should be immediately apparent why this cycle, and therefore CC as a whole, is a problem. CC’s only purpose is for acquiring more systems, but the only reason to get more systems is to get more CC. Furthermore, each additional system costs more than the last. Therefore, powers acquire CC, and systems, one after another, until reaching an inevitable point of stagnation. Many of the larger Powers have been stuck at this point for years.
Since acquiring CC is the primary focus for Powerplay, and CC quickly reaches a point of stagnation, CC only serves to discourage many players. The pursuit of CC should be a powerful motivator for players to engage with the game. CC should be used for profound impacts on the game. Things players want to fight for, driving players to acquire more systems, or fight, to sustain these benefits. CC is the reward for Powerplay, and therefore CC should be the driving force behind Powerplay, towards conflict, not towards stagnation.
But before we can do that, we need to take a step back. The first step of fixing CC is getting rid of Upkeep(and, by proxy, Overhead).
What is Upkeep? Briefly, Controlled systems cost CC to maintain. The further from a Power’s home system, the more CC it costs. The more systems a Power controls, the more CC new systems cost. Eventually, Powers reach a point where most new Systems cost more than they give. For ease of discussion, all of this I group under the singular banner of ‘Upkeep’.
Upkeep is a bad system. Powerplay is about competition against other players, but upkeep instead turns the game into players against the game itself. Many players are not interested in fighting endlessly against the game itself, just to hold their current position. Players join competitive game modes to compete against other players, not against a brick wall of gameplay mechanics.
Even worse, upkeep opens the door to so-called 'Fifth Column' attacks. These occur because it is possible to make moves that cause more harm than good. Since any player can join a Power, these attacks can happen at any time, and are very difficult to stop; you can’t just start killing your own team! Fifth Column attacks can be the most devastating attacks a Power can face; losing a good system might take a few weeks to correct, but taking the wrong system can take months, or years. Worse, 5C attacks require heavy metagaming to prevent, often doing bizarre things like attacking one's own power, or sacrificing good expansions to prevent bad ones. This draws players out of the game, breaking the suspension of disbelief, distracting players from competing with enemy powers, and instead forcing them to fight with the game itself.
But most importantly, upkeep is not necessary.
The primary purpose of upkeep is to prevent Powers from expanding indefinitely and quickly covering every available system, but this can be achieved in other ways. I will elaborate on this below, but to briefly sum up; reward Powers more for reinforcing existing systems than for taking new ones, and at the same time, reward powers for capturing enemy systems, ensuring Powers focus on each other, and the conflict, more than on mindless expansion.
Upkeep should be removed entirely. There should be no such thing as a 'bad' expansion; the worst case scenario should be a new system that doesn't give any CC; even then, it might be valuable for strategic or tactical purposes. Removing the possibility of bad moves will heavily reduce or eliminate 5C attacks, because sabotage will become functionally impossible.
An additional benefit is, because there are now no downsides to taking additional systems, Preparations and Expansions could be removed from any voting process altogether. If an individual player chooses to expand to a system without significant benefit to the Power as a whole, there’s no harm in allowing them to do so, and if the rest of the power doesn’t support them, no voting against them is necessary; all they need to do is refuse to actively help them, allowing their efforts to be easily captured by an enemy power. Since this is one of the most confusing aspects to newer Powerplayers, this will significantly open the door to the less experienced, and get more people playing Powerplay.
Part 3: Control System Improvements
Now that players are encouraged to gather as much CC as possible, the first response players will have is to expand their Power to every system they can. Since Upkeep has been removed, there is also no downside to doing this. Players need a reason to focus their attention on their existing systems, rather than focusing on unchecked expansion.
The first part of this is system improvements.
When first claimed, Systems would provide a relatively small amount of CC income. As this System is fortified over time, the CC income of the system would increase, as the Power entrenches its position, and gains influence over local factions.
Currently, what is Fortification? Fortification is the main way that Players currently acquire Merits and play Powerplay. Players collect Merits at their Power’s home base, and deliver them to various systems around the bubble. Currently, the result of fully Fortifying a System is the removal of Upkeep for that week. Since Upkeep no longer exists, this process would be replaced. Instead, hauling sufficient Merits to a system would cause the gradual improvement of that system, and a slow increase of its CC income.
A poor system could never become as profitable as a good system, but it could still become profitable. On the flipside, fortifying a good system could provide more CC than taking a new poor system.
This helps to keep rampant expansion in check, but it still lacks a solid reason to fight, and would eventually result in every system in the bubble being taken, so an additional factor is required: Looting.
Part 4: Keeping Runaway Expansion in Check: Raids and Looting
While Improvements will help to slow the rate of rampant expansion, it alone won’t check it entirely. Powers will always choose to expand, rather than fight, because it will be easier. To encourage Powers to fight before claiming every possible system, Powers will be rewarded for successfully undermining enemy systems.
However, it’s important to recognize a critical aspect of the removal of Upkeep; since taking a system cannot harm the power anymore, this means that Powers cannot go into Turmoil. A new system for losing systems is required. This system, however, can be much simpler than before.
Turmoil was always somewhat unintuitive. The way it currently works is, when a Power doesn’t have enough CC to sustain its systems, it loses the most expensive system under its control, and then the next, and so on until enough CC is left to sustain the rest. This can lead to confusing results; a Power could be attacked on one frontier, lose, and yet rather than losing the attacked system, lose a system on the complete opposite side of their territory, giving that system to an entirely different power than the one currently attacking. This can be unintuitive and unsatisfying, especially for newer players, to whom the results seem completely disconnected from their actions.
With the new lack of upkeep, this could be simplified substantially. When a system is undermined, that system, and that system alone, is put at risk. If it is undermined more than it is fortified, that system is lost.
But this still raises the question of, why? Why attack another power at all?
Looting is the answer.
Whenever Powers cause an enemy Power to lose a system, the attacking power(s) gain an instant bonus of CC, depending on the value of the attacked system. Essentially, the long-term profits of the system are taken as an immediate CC bonus, with the rewards distributed to each attacking Power based on the percentage of total undermining each attacking Power did.
For example, if Archon Delaine and Zemina Torval attack a Zachary Hudson system which gives him 25 CC a week, it might be worth 100CC in loot. If Archon players do 75% of the work, and Torval players do 25% of the work, then Archon Delaine will immediately receive 75CC at the end of the week, and Torval receiving 25 CC, while Hudson loses the system, and all accumulated Fortification.
This will prevent rampant over-expansion, since hostile Powers will always be searching for a weak point to attack, to gain an immediate bonus. Smaller Powers would generally be better off attacking larger Powers and fortifying their own systems, rather than expanding exponentially. However, it also leaves room for Powers to expand as their playerbase increases. If more players enter Powerplay, the Powers could expand to compensate.
Even this, however, may not be enough to fully counteract a single dominant Power from taking complete control. As one final aspect to prevent unlimited expansion, there would be:
Part 5: Thargoids and Pirates
One final balance factor is necessary. Right now, as a Power expands to more and more systems, they face increasingly massive Overhead, heavily limiting which systems they can expand into, but doing so in a dull and uninspired way, and even worse, in a way that is completely disconnected from player effort. Powers do need to be prevented from achieving runaway success and conquering the entire galaxy, but because upkeep is gone, it needs to happen in a different way. Fortunately, this way can also be more interesting and enjoyable.
Thargoids and Pirates would occasionally attack random systems, typically on the outskirts of Powers. Rather than fighting this off abstractly, via fortifying, players would instead fight it off directly, by killing the pirates or thargoids in the system.
If they fail to drive off the attack, it will mean the system will be lost. Most of the CC will go to the Pirates or Thargoids(functionally disappearing into the void), but enemy Powers who aided in the attack could also claim some for themselves, and use the opportunity to make an attack that would otherwise be impossible.
These attacks would be random. Theoretically, this would affect everyone equally, but because large Powers have the most territory to be attacked, they would generally face the brunt of attacks.
Additionally, Pirate attacks would function somewhat differently from Thargoid attacks. Pirate attacks would simply cause the system to be lost, and cause economic damage that makes the system undesirable for Powerplay for several weeks. That, however, would be the end of it.
Thargoids, by contrast, would be a more existential threat. If Thargoids are not repelled, they would expand, attacking system after system, and burning the stations in those systems, requiring sustained effort to repair. This could be a powerful way to weaken major Powers, but could also turn against the galaxy, as if the incursion is allowed to grow too large, it could become difficult to repel before spreading to other Powers! Powers would need to plan carefully and strategically to make sure they don’t end up hurting themselves in the process of hurting others.
This forces larger Powers to think strategically. It may be more effective to spend their CC on better NPC defenses against these threats, rather than attempt to drive them off purely via player effort, and it gives smaller Powers an advantageous position to attack them. It also creates incentive to form alliances and work together for the greater good. Two formerly-hostile factions might declare peace until a Thargoid incursion is dealt with, while others might attack them to gain the advantage.
Part 6: Pledging and getting Merits.
Since players are now incentivized to increase the strength of the power on their own, without needing merit rewards(due to getting rewards directly from CC purchases), merit rewards no longer need to be awarded exclusively for hauling merits or undermining. Players will naturally accrue merits as they play the game, similar to ARX.
- Merit gain is increased when inside Power territory.
- Merit gain is increased when doing Power-related activities(such as hauling merits).
- Merit gain is increased when doing ethos-aligned activities - IE, when Delaine players do piracy or smuggling, when Alliance players trade, when Sirius corp players explore.
- By contrast, each Power also has counter-aligned activities, which do not give merits; for Delaine, it would be trading, while for Winters, it would be piracy and smuggling.
As a result, the number of votes players get(to vote for CC rewards) increases as they play the game more, and especially as they do ethos-based activities. This means that it is no longer possible to quickly farm your way to a max-rank and maximum votes, as the normal players who are just playing the game will always have more merits than an alt account only used occasionally.
With these changes, 5C should be effectively eliminated. 5C players will have less votes than the actual participating players, and even if they do manage to gain power, the worst thing a 5C player can do is vote for a less-useful bonus, and even the worst bonus is still a bonus, and still helpful.
In addition, these activities would not only reward the player with Merits, they also give a small amount of CC to the Power; not as much as claiming systems, but enough that just having more players is beneficial. This represents the players 'showing the flag', both inside and outside their territory. The reason for this is to encourage Powers to recruit new players, even those who are not directly interested in Powerplay activities.
This CC reward experiences diminishing returns, so while larger powers will get somewhat more than smaller powers, the difference won't be as massive as the difference in population. A large power would generally get this CC by default, but a small power might be incentivized to specifically task a player or group of players to go participate in a given activity, to show the flag and gain the associated CC rewards.
6a: Powerplay Modules: Gaining Merits without Pledging
One aspect of Powerplay that many players don’t like is the way you need to pledge to a faction and wait four weeks to gain access to Powerplay Modules.
This is a bad mechanic; not just because of the annoyance over the time factor, but also because it encourages players to ‘shop’ among Powers, which is not good from a gameplay OR roleplay perspective. When players are encouraged to swap regularly between Powers, it weakens their connection to any particular Power, and dilutes the importance of Powerplay.
In replacement of this system, Players of ANY Power(or even of no power at all) could gain Merits for a Power, by playing inside their space, doing their aligned activities, and helping their aligned factions. For example, a player wanting Cytoscrambers would sell pirated goods to black markets inside Archon Delaine space. They would be rewarded with a small allotment of Delaine merits for doing so. Merits could be used to buy powerplay modules from specialized Powerplay tech brokers. Of course, if they have a Powerplay bounty from that faction, these brokers would become inaccessible.
This action would fortify the relevant system, directly supporting the Power in question, and earn them CC in a similar way to how Pledged players earn them CC.
The acquisition of these Merits would be balanced so that a player could buy approximately one module for several hours worth of effort(of course, this is in addition to any credits that are earned). Right now, players usually pledge for the four weeks and then buy multiple ships worth of modules; the objective is for the time investment to roughly balance out, only with more freedom in when and how to buy and use the modules. In the long term, players would actually end up spending more time getting as many modules as they want, but in the short term, the first module would become much more available. Plus, modules that are difficult to store(such as Prismatic Shields) would be much more convenient, as the player could simply acquire the Merits and store them, rather than feeling obligated to have dozens of ships and billions of credits locked up in Prismatic Shields they may never use.
This benefits the players, but also benefits the Powers, as Module Shoppers tend to haul in ways that are confusing and generally unhelpful. By making their actions directly contribute to the available CC of the Power, it guarantees that their efforts are always beneficial to the Power, justifying why they allow them to buy these modules, in exchange for their service.
Everyone wins.
Part 7: Integration of PVP. Convoys.
A very often-requested feature of powerplay is pvp. However, there are also many players who want to participate, but don't want to pvp. The answer is a compromise; Convoys.
Every week, each Power’s home system would dispatch a series of convoys to each Controlled system, to fortify that system. This convoy would carry the equivalent of tens of thousands of merits, and would be heavily defended by NPCs. This convoy would exist exclusively in open, and the instance would be hosted by the servers themselves.They would jump from system to system, taking a short amount of time in each system(as a 'Powerplay Convoy Signal Source') before moving onto the next.
If attacked, they would be mass locked by the total hull mass of the attacking ships; the more, and larger they are, the more time would be available to kill them. Large ships tend to be more vulnerable to pvp, however, so attackers would need to strike a balance between pvp and pve effectiveness. Because these Convoys would travel at a regular(slow) speed, jumping from system to system, closer systems would be difficult for enemies to attack, since they would always be under the protection of NPCs, and would get there faster. However, if these convoys crossed uncontrolled space, or had longer distances to travel, they would become much more vulnerable. This would further encourage tactical expansion; even in the worst case, a ‘tentacle’ of controlled systems would still be better than a control system totally separated from Power space.
Each Power would have their own advantages and disadvantages, which would govern how their convoys travel, and therefore, how their Power expands. For example, Federal convoys would use Federal ships, and have more firepower, but lower jump ranges. Sirius corp would have longer jump ranges but less defenses, and so on. Regardless, when they arrive in the target system, they would rapidly disperse and dramatically fortify that system.
On the defending side, all of these ships would be considered 'winged' with Pledged players, allowing them to shoot those ships with healing beams to keep them alive. Repair Limpets would also be helpful, allowing damaged npcs to be repaired before the jump to the next system.
Fortification could still take place without this convoy, and could still be hauled in solo, but if the convoy is destroyed, the defenders will lose a significant advantage. Pvp should be valued, but not to the point of being more valuable than anyone else.
The best part about this solution is that all players must be in the same instance. If the defenders are not in the same instance as the attackers, they cannot defend the NPC ships from attack. If the attackers are not in the same instance as the defenders, they cannot attack the NPC ships. There is no way to game this system by playing with your connection.
But because it is not the only way to fortify, PVP still remains completely voluntary, and no more important than any activity, instead finally taking a place of equal value with other ways of supporting your Power.
Part 8: Powerplay as a Game (the hard part).
With the above changes, we have now created a system where players are encouraged to join, and where it is better to support your own side than sabotage the enemy from within. That’s all well and good, but that alone isn’t enough; you need an actual game to play within Powerplay, as well.
Designing a functional game like this isn’t easy. It is essentially a 3d turn-based grand strategy game, each week a single turn, and each player an individual piece on a playing field larger than any other game in existence. Hundreds of board games are released each year, but only a few each decade achieve significant success, demonstrating the difficulty of creating an experience that is both innovative and enduring.
But as difficult as creating a new system is, the current system is worse. The majority of effort goes into outhauling the saboteurs in your Power, or at least outvoting them if they win. Even in the best of cases, a Power is generally voting against taking 70-80% of prospective expansions, in large part because of players hauling just for the sake of modules. The only ‘trickery’ lies in gathering tens of thousands of undermining merits and turning them in all at once.
Worse, the current system of attack and defense is completely abstracted. You don't attack a particular system, you attack the power as a whole, and hope you can cause them to fall into turmoil and lose systems. This makes it very confusing for new players, and frustratingly abstracted for older, yet less-invested players. Imagine, for comparison, if in Civilization, rather than attacking a specific city, you attacked their civilization as a whole, and if they lost, they would lose their most expensive cities first? This would feel very strange, abstracted, and unsatisfying. Or if in Age of Empires, when you were attacking your enemy’s army, rather than being able to focus down weaker enemies, you just shot vaguely at them, and after a while, their most expensive unit would die? Much of the high-level skill, tactics, and strategy, would not exist.
Most games offer the ability to attack enemies on a more tactical level; for example, in Age of Empires, you can take your enemy’s gold, preventing them from making powerful units; in Civilization, you can attack an enemy’s only Oil or Iron supply, likewise preventing them from constructing many of their powerful units. This more direct approach allows a much more expansive type of strategic and tactical gameplay, and is broadly superior to Elite’s more abstracted system.
Part 8a: Simplifying Attack and Defense.
I went over this a bit earlier, but to recap what I said in greater detail, the current system should be replaced by one much more direct, tactical, and easy to understand.
- Undermined systems would be attacked individually.
- Undermining Merits would be reported immediately, not only when turned in.
- If a system is successfully undermined, that system in particular will be lost.
- Preparation would be removed, because 5C is gone.
- Expansion would happen immediately, after one week.
Because systems could be claimed or lost in a single week, the gameplay would be significantly faster, becoming more intense and driving greater engagement and participation. The more players can change the universe, the more they feel their own impact on it.
This alone is not nearly enough. The current ‘playing field’ does not change enough, which means the game can be ‘solved’; players can find the optimum systems to capture, and while enemy attacks may temporarily shift them, eventually, the game will become stagnant as players constantly push towards this enduring ‘ideal state’. An unchanging playing field is acceptable for games which only last a few hours or days, but the Powerplay game must be expected to endure for years, and therefore requires a greater degree of complexity. Consider games like Age of Empires or Civilization, which randomize the map each game, to ensure a diverse and interesting experience each time.
The last thing you want is for a player to leave for a year with two powers fighting over one system, only to return to find them still in the same exact fight over the same exact system, with all their effort being seemingly meaningless. This stagnation is a big part of why the game has lost the interest of many players. With this in mind, the game should also integrate other factors, such as BGS factions and states.
This would be tied into Fortification.
Part 8b: Fortification.
The objective of these changes is for players to consider the game from a strategic, geographic standpoint, not purely a statistical one. Consider, for example, Civilization; because of the way the map is designed, attacking certain Cities is more strategically viable than others. Attacking a city in the middle of a vast empire would be foolish, as the city would immediately come under attack from all sides, and would likely culture flip even if not conquered. Constructing a defensible empire is just as important as creating a powerful army, and being able to insert a tactical city in the right place can make the difference between victory and defeat.
While these aspects cannot be copied entirely, much can be drawn from the way they are implemented, and applied in a way that fits with the 3d map and universe of Elite.
Fortification currently occurs exclusively as a result of player action, and therefore certain vital systems can be undermined by surprise, even in seemingly secure locations, diminishing the importance of strategic empire planning. This is exacerbated because undermining players can remain completely concealed, even while playing in Open, since Undermining is invisible until the merits are turned in.
In the new system, Fortification could be preemptively increased by the presence of nearby controlled systems. In this case, ‘nearby’ would mean, ‘the 15ly influence bubbles of each Control system are touching’. If they touch each other, they support and reinforce each other.
Each supporting system would fortify adjacent systems, making them more difficult to attack, even without direct player action. This creates a strong impetus for developing a robust internal Power structure. This creates conflicting drives within the Power; do you focus on pure CC acquisition, at the risk of creating a poorly-defended power that will likely be raided? Or do you create a Power that is less efficient at CC generation, but which is easier to defend due to a strong network of internal fortification?
These values would need to be tested and tweaked, to find a point that is balanced and fair to each individual Power. These are just to give ideas of the tactical impact of having powers with differing tactical and strategic objectives.
Imperial and Federal systems can be fortified by up to four nearby systems, ideally of synergizing BGS factions. When fully fortified, they are very difficult to take. However, with lower amounts of fortification, they are weaker than other Power types. This encourages dense, centrally governed Powers, expanding evenly, so as to expose fewer openings to enemy attack.
Alliance, Sirius, and Grom systems can be fortified by up to three adjacent systems. When not fortified, they are stronger than unfortified Imperial or Federal systems, but when fully fortified, they are slightly weaker. This encourages a slightly looser structure, more easily expanded in thinner planes around the central Powers.
Archon Delaine and Pranav Antal systems can be fortified by up to two adjacent systems. However, they are also the strongest when unfortified, and even with just two adjacent systems, they are still relatively strong. These two are much better at having independent nodes of activity.
The objective of these different fortification approaches is to encourage each Power to look at the game in a different way, and pursue different objectives, thereby creating unique, enjoyable gameplay, as well as conflict.
Part 8c: BGS Synergy
On top of this, the range and power of fortification could be adjusted by the BGS factions and states within the Power. This would be similar to the current system of synergistic BGS factions. Each Power should prefer certain governments for Control systems(which would match their ethos), and other systems for Exploited systems.
The range and strength of fortification would be based on various other local factors as well, like BGS states and Happiness. A matching government will increase the range of fortification, while a hostile government will reduce the range. Low happiness in Controlled systems would reduce the range, while high happiness would increase it. Different BGS states could temporarily affect the range dramatically; a Public Holiday, for example, could dramatically increase the range, and if timed properly could make a massive difference in defense situations. By contrast, a Pirate Attack could reduce fortification range, exposing systems to attack.
As an example, Archon Delaine might prefer to have Dictatorships or Communisms as Controlled systems, but Anarchies or Patronages as Exploited systems. By having central nodes of Dictatorships surrounded by Anarchies, their systems might increase their fortification range substantially, given sufficient time to convert local BGS factions to support them. However, when they invade enemy territory which lacks this support structure, they must carefully analyze the best systems to make into the new Control system, based on distance to existing Control systems and the theoretical maximum strength of the new captured area. It may take more effort than it’s worth to convert all exploited systems to their desired BGS faction, especially if they expect the system to be captured at some point, so they may instead choose to capture a different system, one with greater short-term potential with less BGS effort. This in turn would force other powers to reorganize around them; the next time that system is recaptured, BGS factions will once again be different, resulting in the playing field shifting each time a Power moves, and a constantly shifting playing field.
The same systems can be used for attack, not just defense. While having adjacent controlled systems or synergizing BGS factions can help to fortify a system, having adjacent ENEMY systems can instead serve to weaken it. Enemy powers could take a system near the target system, and use it as a staging point for their attack. This system itself would be a vulnerable point which could easily be attacked, but would also weaken the defending system. An attacker might time the taking of a spearhead system to coincide with a nearby Exploited or supporting Control system going into Civil Unrest, causing its fortification benefits to shrink enough their benefit is removed. Combined, these could create a point of weakness through which an attack could be pressed. Alternatively, BGS systems could be weakened and caused to swap, again creating weaknesses which could then be exploited. To facilitate this, BGS wars where beneficial factions are at risk of falling would be pointed out on the galaxy map, helping players to find where they can go to fight to help their Power.
Part 8d: Summary and Objectives
There are two primary objectives of the new system.
- The playing field can be understood easily. A new player just needs to attack or defend, with little in the way of strategic thinking required. This could be either Powerplay or BGS-related.
- There is plenty of deep strategy to keep long-term players entertained indefinitely. Because the game board could change dramatically, based on shifting factors such as BGS states, happiness, factions in control, or even Community Goals, there is no one perfect layout of the 'game board', and many moves that can be made. As BGS factions evolve, the strategic balance of the map could change significantly over time, resulting in essentially unlimited gameplay, enough to last for years, or even decades.
Conclusion
So, what have we created?
First off, we’ve created a system where players are encouraged to participate and compete, no matter if their Power is first place or last.
We’ve created a system that’s open to new players, yet remains interesting to old ones.
We’ve created a system with depth, strategy, and near-infinite variety, allowing indefinite gameplay.
We’ve created a system where 5C is impossible.
We’ve created a system that ties into the universe, integrating the Thargoid war and making players feel part of an ongoing narrative.
TLDR:
- By removing Upkeep, and making it impossible to take negative actions, we remove 5C.
- Rather than using CC to purchase new systems, CC is `used to purchase bonuses for the players in the Power. These are bought once a month, and players vote on them instead of voting on new systems to take. This encourages player participation, even in smaller powers.
- Powers can improve Control systems to improve their CC income, driving them to focus on their existing systems rather than capture new ones willy-nilly.
- Players acquire merits from doing power-aligned actions, not just hauling powerplay merits. This means active players remain in control of the Power, while the relative power of alts is diminished.
- Enemy powers get a one-time CC bonus for capturing an enemy system, driving them to fight, rather than fortify forever, and also helping prevent Powers from expanding willy-nilly.
- Overhead is replaced by pirate and thargoid system-wide attacks. This lets players fight directly against it, rather than abstractly countering it.
- Server-hosted Convoy instances travel from Power home systems to each Control system, to reinforce them each week. This offers a central location for meaningful pvp, without preventing solo hauling.
- Powerplay strategy is redesigned to a direct system based on proper Control System placement and maintaining supporting BGS factions, in replacement of the current, more abstracted system.
Whew! That was a massive document, one I've been working on for a while! While not perfect, I believe I've reached a point of diminishing returns, and I needed to post it before I burned out completely.
So, what do you think? Would you be interested in a Powerplay more like described here? Do you have any ideas for how it could be improved? Let me know!
