![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
Powerplay is about the struggle for territory and dominance. This struggle is dynamic: the powers expand in their zenith and shrink if they fall into turmoil.
However, the relation between the powers is static! All powers will always stay in the same relation, determined by their major faction affiliation. There is no possibility for peace nor reliable cooperation even if the pledged followers of the powers would like to - there is no DIPLOMACY in Powerplay.
Sure, there are reddit-groups, passing diplomatic notes between each other – and this is awesome! There are some discussion going on in the forum and news injected into GalNet, which is fine, too. But neither do all players follow reddit, nor has any agreement between small numbers of players any „enforceable“ effect in the game.
Could there be a way to implement diplomacy into Powerplay? A game mechanic that picks up the democratic (or should I say 'anarchic'?) character of decision-making in the current play of powers?
I was thinking about this recently and want to propose the following.
A concept of player-driven diplomacy in Powerplay
DISCLAIMER: This concept doesn't address the balance-issues some players see in Powerplay nor does it want to. The merit-gain for different ship sizes in combat for expansion is already discussed in other threads as is the meager benefit of opposing by pirating in contrast to opposing by ship destruction. Please use the existing threads to continue this discussions.
Okay, let's start then....
The concept in bullet-points:
- This concept tries to create a developing diplomacy between powers, driven by all commanders pledged to a power.
- As in the current implementation, each commander has a certain amount of votes dependent to the commanders rank in his power.
- In contrast to the current implementation, these votes are not used to raise the preparation of systems, but to increase or decrease the relation towards any number of powers.
- The voting system is relative: The votes of all commanders pledged to a power are added together and count as 100%. Each cycle's election is evaluated by the percentages of votes spent, not their absolute numbers.
- All votes are added (or subtracted) to (or from) a certain basic relation level. This level varies depending on the power's major faction affiliation and equals the current implementation.
- Depending of the votes of both related powers, the diplomatic relation may change in the next cycle and reach a better (or worse!) state than the basic relation level suggests.
- There are four states possible: friendly, neutral, miserable and war.
But a picture speaks more than a thousand words. Hence I tried to visualize my suggestion in the following mockup:
Picture: Mockup of the proposed diplomacy screen
(1) At the top line, the current diplomatic relations (due to the last cycle's election) are displayed.
(2) Underneath, the current election is done. All votes already casted (from your power followers towards other powers, but also from other power members towards your own power) are displayed here.
(3) Your power ranking and the according available votes are displayed here. The total amount of available votes should be high enough to allow a reasonable spread between the five ranks and as well a certain dispersal of votes between powers. It shouldn't be so high that distributing votes is a chore.
The votes can be used to increase (4) or decrease (5) the relation towards other powers. All votes are immediately subtracted from the available votes, but can be re-arranged freely. As soon as the 'VOTE NOW'-button is pressed, the votes are cast and the voting process is finished for this cycle.
Each power has a basic relation level (6). Powers of the same alignment are 'neutral' towards each other, the relation towards all other powers is 'miserable'. All votes use this base line for their evaluation.
(7) In this example, enough of both Antal's followers and commanders pledged to Li Yong-Rui feel that the friendly relations should be continued the upcoming cycle.
(8) However, the lowest value determines the future relations! While some of Antal's followers feel that they should live in at least 'miserable' relations towards Denton Parteus, 20% of his followers votes were cast for a 'war' against Antal – hence the 'war' will continue in the next cycle!
Things are getting better between Archon Delaine and Antal, however. While there is currently 'War' between both powers (9), the future cycle will see more relaxed relations (10).
REMARKS:
- Please be aware that all percental values are merely guesswork and may need heavy balancing. 40% of all votes to span a „diplomatic tier“ might be a reasonable number, though (the mockup is a bit off, in this regard!).
- I am not overly happy with the four tier's names. Better proposals are more than welcome!
- While it is not the intention of this proposal to solve the balance issues of Powerplay, it might very well help in this regard! As the relation between powers are no longer fixed, players have influence on how to oppose other powers by changing these relations. By down-voting the relation to 'miserable' or even 'war', opposing other powers will be way easier and even beneficial!
- Good, ('friendly') relations towards other powers might be desirable for traders. Players dedicated to a conflict-orientated play-style will find that 'War' is way more profitable for them!
------------------
Alternative game mechanic:
Picture: The basic relation level changes due to previous relations
- If the current relation towards a power is a tier better than the basic relation level, the level will move up to reflect the long term effects of increased trust.
- In the future, less votes will be necessary to reach the better tier.
- The basic relation level will never raise into the next tier but stay fixed at a high level of its original tier.
- The equivalent is true for tiers beneath the standard tier (of course lowering the basic relation level).
------------------
What do you think, commanders?
Would this addition increase your enjoyment of Powerplay? Or do you think this is unnecessary?
Do you have alternative ideas or want to propose modifications of the presented concept?
I would love to read about your thoughts!
Fly safe and with profit,
CMDR Auzawandilaz
However, the relation between the powers is static! All powers will always stay in the same relation, determined by their major faction affiliation. There is no possibility for peace nor reliable cooperation even if the pledged followers of the powers would like to - there is no DIPLOMACY in Powerplay.
Sure, there are reddit-groups, passing diplomatic notes between each other – and this is awesome! There are some discussion going on in the forum and news injected into GalNet, which is fine, too. But neither do all players follow reddit, nor has any agreement between small numbers of players any „enforceable“ effect in the game.
Could there be a way to implement diplomacy into Powerplay? A game mechanic that picks up the democratic (or should I say 'anarchic'?) character of decision-making in the current play of powers?
I was thinking about this recently and want to propose the following.
A concept of player-driven diplomacy in Powerplay
DISCLAIMER: This concept doesn't address the balance-issues some players see in Powerplay nor does it want to. The merit-gain for different ship sizes in combat for expansion is already discussed in other threads as is the meager benefit of opposing by pirating in contrast to opposing by ship destruction. Please use the existing threads to continue this discussions.
Okay, let's start then....
The concept in bullet-points:
- This concept tries to create a developing diplomacy between powers, driven by all commanders pledged to a power.
- As in the current implementation, each commander has a certain amount of votes dependent to the commanders rank in his power.
- In contrast to the current implementation, these votes are not used to raise the preparation of systems, but to increase or decrease the relation towards any number of powers.
- The voting system is relative: The votes of all commanders pledged to a power are added together and count as 100%. Each cycle's election is evaluated by the percentages of votes spent, not their absolute numbers.
- All votes are added (or subtracted) to (or from) a certain basic relation level. This level varies depending on the power's major faction affiliation and equals the current implementation.
- Depending of the votes of both related powers, the diplomatic relation may change in the next cycle and reach a better (or worse!) state than the basic relation level suggests.
- There are four states possible: friendly, neutral, miserable and war.
- Friendly: Members of both powers may freely cross the other power's territory. The 'hostile' warning is gone and they are not interdicted by the other member's AI pilots. It is not possible to oppose expansions nor fortifications of 'friendly' powers.
- Neutral: Equals the current effects of powers of the same major faction affiliation.
- Miserable: Equals the current effects of powers of the different major faction affiliation.
- War: The relations are ruined! The power leaders are willing to pay credits for each destroyed enemy ship and merit gains are increased: Ships destroyed in opposition tasks will be rewarded with 2500 cr. (in addition to the usual 15 merits). Enemy ships destroyed in the home territory will now be rewarded with 7500 cr. and 5 merits. The likeliness of being interdicted by enemy ships is increased.
But a picture speaks more than a thousand words. Hence I tried to visualize my suggestion in the following mockup:
Picture: Mockup of the proposed diplomacy screen
(1) At the top line, the current diplomatic relations (due to the last cycle's election) are displayed.
(2) Underneath, the current election is done. All votes already casted (from your power followers towards other powers, but also from other power members towards your own power) are displayed here.
(3) Your power ranking and the according available votes are displayed here. The total amount of available votes should be high enough to allow a reasonable spread between the five ranks and as well a certain dispersal of votes between powers. It shouldn't be so high that distributing votes is a chore.
The votes can be used to increase (4) or decrease (5) the relation towards other powers. All votes are immediately subtracted from the available votes, but can be re-arranged freely. As soon as the 'VOTE NOW'-button is pressed, the votes are cast and the voting process is finished for this cycle.
Each power has a basic relation level (6). Powers of the same alignment are 'neutral' towards each other, the relation towards all other powers is 'miserable'. All votes use this base line for their evaluation.
(7) In this example, enough of both Antal's followers and commanders pledged to Li Yong-Rui feel that the friendly relations should be continued the upcoming cycle.
(8) However, the lowest value determines the future relations! While some of Antal's followers feel that they should live in at least 'miserable' relations towards Denton Parteus, 20% of his followers votes were cast for a 'war' against Antal – hence the 'war' will continue in the next cycle!
Things are getting better between Archon Delaine and Antal, however. While there is currently 'War' between both powers (9), the future cycle will see more relaxed relations (10).
REMARKS:
- Please be aware that all percental values are merely guesswork and may need heavy balancing. 40% of all votes to span a „diplomatic tier“ might be a reasonable number, though (the mockup is a bit off, in this regard!).
- I am not overly happy with the four tier's names. Better proposals are more than welcome!
- While it is not the intention of this proposal to solve the balance issues of Powerplay, it might very well help in this regard! As the relation between powers are no longer fixed, players have influence on how to oppose other powers by changing these relations. By down-voting the relation to 'miserable' or even 'war', opposing other powers will be way easier and even beneficial!
- Good, ('friendly') relations towards other powers might be desirable for traders. Players dedicated to a conflict-orientated play-style will find that 'War' is way more profitable for them!
------------------
Alternative game mechanic:
Picture: The basic relation level changes due to previous relations
- If the current relation towards a power is a tier better than the basic relation level, the level will move up to reflect the long term effects of increased trust.
- In the future, less votes will be necessary to reach the better tier.
- The basic relation level will never raise into the next tier but stay fixed at a high level of its original tier.
- The equivalent is true for tiers beneath the standard tier (of course lowering the basic relation level).
------------------
What do you think, commanders?
Would this addition increase your enjoyment of Powerplay? Or do you think this is unnecessary?
Do you have alternative ideas or want to propose modifications of the presented concept?
I would love to read about your thoughts!
Fly safe and with profit,
CMDR Auzawandilaz
