Elite Dangerous: Ascendancy | Now Live!

[Kira Goto]

Because a coffee morning sim is not as exciting.

And the lore makes it rather evident that those powers have… ‘disagreements’, between one another.

Though I’m not sure I could make an entirely convincing point for Denton and Arissa, Mahon and Kaine (for example) aren’t exactly the kind to be getting along very well when it comes to their politics.

And this Powerplay stuff is also kind of removed from the (slightly) more civil political discussions/debates in chambers. Looking at it in the same light as what happens when politicians share a room together (just ignore the Imperial purge a few years back) isn’t the right approach, I would say.

 

[Dr Pillman]

Nakato Kaine users can't rank-up, because of no acquisition systems. Can I ask God's hands?
@Paul_Crowther

I did rank up yesterday evening

 

[Dr Pillman]

Because a coffee morning sim is not as exciting.

First, that is your personal preference, that´s why you pledged with Archon. fair enough.
Second: I didn´t want everyone to be holding hands with everyone, I wanted a tad more dynamic, more spread for the range of hostility - conflicting loyalties - awkward truce - general indifference - fragile balance - grudging cooperation - peace and pancakes for all. Like, range for upper level dynamics. I wrote, paraphrased: tensions and loyalties should be allowed to change and shift. Did you read my post? I am perfectly ok with Archon being hostile to everyone, or Grom. I am perfectly ok with the possibility of civil war in the Empire breaking out at some point.
But I was questioning stratifying everything to "general free for all" by default in an instant.

 

[Dr Pillman]

And the lore makes it rather evident that those powers have… ‘disagreements’, between one another.

Though I’m not sure I could make an entirely convincing point for Denton and Arissa, Mahon and Kaine (for example) aren’t exactly the kind to be getting along very well when it comes to their politics.

And this Powerplay stuff is also kind of removed from the (slightly) more civil political discussions/debates in chambers. Looking at it in the same light as what happens when politicians share a room together (just ignore the Imperial purge a few years back) isn’t the right approach, I would say.

see my answer to rubbernuke above.
Of course they have disagreements. that´s why they are building separate areas of influence under the roof of the superpower. I am absolutely not opposed to them locking horns now and then, or the superpower splitting at some point in the future. But all-out civil war from one day to the next seems a stretch to explain, lore wise. I don´t see how "shoot on sight" is the logical outcome. I just thought it seems simplified to the point that "superpowers" are irrelevant.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Of course they have disagreements. that´s why they are building separate areas of influence under the roof of the superpower. I am absolutely not opposed to them locking horns now and then, or the superpower splitting at some point in the future. But all-out civil war from one day to the next seems a stretch to explain, lore wise. I don´t see how "shoot on sight" is the logical outcome. I just thought it seems simplified to the point that "superpowers" are irrelevant.

Though the converse in Powerplay 1 was that because it was really difficult to attack a same-superpower power even if you wanted to, things rapidly compacted into just 6 of 11 effective powers (Feds, Imps+Grom, LYR, Antal, Delaine, Mahon), at which point it goes too far the other way with all the internal disagreement suppressed for a unity not at all reflected in the rest of the lore. And I don't think internal attacks need to be very much more difficult before it becomes thoroughly disincentivised ... and it might as well just be one Power per superpower.

From my point of view ... sure, Mahon is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the others, but it's still better that I can theoretically [1] kick him out of Leesti as a Kaine supporter rather than having to switch pledges to anyone else, kick him out, then switch back to start building up that region as a Kaine stronghold.

Conversely, Mahon/Kaine supporting groups who would like to go for the "first we deal with the others" approach can still do that - they both have plenty of other targets.

[1] Obviously Mahon's supporters can and will stop me doing that, that's fine. I don't mind not succeeding in practice.

 

[Mersozz]

Currently it appears I can change my squadron's allegiance to other Minor Factions and other Power Play Powers.

QUESTION: Is this a one-time reset for the Ascendancy update, or an option that I can exercise more than once?

For example, if I pledge my squadron to a Power, can I later change my squadron's allegiance to a different Power at a later date?

To be clear, my question is squadron-specific. I understand as an individual Commander I can change my Power allegiances. I just don't want to screw up my Squadron's situation (which is currently unaligned with any Powers).

 

[Dr Pillman]

Though the converse in Powerplay 1 was that because it was really difficult to attack a same-superpower power even if you wanted to, things rapidly compacted into just 6 of 11 effective powers (Feds, Imps+Grom, LYR, Antal, Delaine, Mahon), at which point it goes too far the other way with all the internal disagreement suppressed for a unity not at all reflected in the rest of the lore. And I don't think internal attacks need to be very much more difficult before it becomes thoroughly disincentivised ... and it might as well just be one Power per superpower.

From my point of view ... sure, Mahon is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the others, but it's still better that I can theoretically [1] kick him out of Leesti as a Kaine supporter rather than having to switch pledges to anyone else, kick him out, then switch back to start building up that region as a Kaine stronghold.

Conversely, Mahon/Kaine supporting groups who would like to go for the "first we deal with the others" approach can still do that - they both have plenty of other targets.

[1] Obviously Mahon's supporters can and will stop me doing that, that's fine. I don't mind not succeeding in practice.

You got a point there. My personal ideal dream would have been to let same SP-powers start out neutral, but let them fight for influence locally without necessarily triggering general hostility. But that should be able to come and go down the road. But yeah, maybe that is difficult to balance. before, it was almost all flipped to "Only Super powers matter", not it is forced to "only powers matter", and the mix between might be an unstable knife´s edge. It´s just...the transition was rather jarring.
Other than that, I am really enjoying the new system. Just earlier, I encountered a Mahon ship in a ReZ in Kaine space, and he was flagged "enemy", but was marked yellow, and stayed yellow. I didn´t attack, as he didn´t carry bounty, and he didn´t, either, we just ignored each other. That seems about right. Getting shot out of autodock about 200m from the toast rack completely out of nowhere by an opposing alliance agent just felt really harsh the other day.

 

[Dr Pillman]

Anyway, anyone got their power decals yet? Is there a special trick to retreive them? I got the message yesterday it would be ready to use, and it is still just not there in "livery", neither yellow nor grey.

 

[Darrack]

Anyway, anyone got their power decals yet? Is there a special trick to retreive them? I got the message yesterday it would be ready to use, and it is still just not there in "livery", neither yellow nor grey.

I think its just one decal which changes as you rank up

O7

 

[Dr Pillman]

I think its just one decal which changes as you rank up

O7

No, I mean, i am only rank 3, and i should have gotten it at 1, but in my livery inventory, there is only the mahon circle from before PP 2.0

 

[Factabulous]

No, I mean, i am only rank 3, and i should have gotten it at 1, but in my livery inventory, there is only the mahon circle from before PP 2.0

I think it's called 'Powerplay Rank' and the icon doesn't match the actual look - because it is dynamic I guess

 

[St0rmFury]

First of all: Thank you, I absolutely love the PP 2.0 up to now! It is so much more engaging than before, and ties in so nicely. Sure, there are some wrinkles left, but they will smooth out.
Only one thing bugs me just a little:
Why are all powers hostile to each other by default? It seems to defeat the idea of superpowers like the alliance or Imperium, it basically reduces the politics to 1 layer: Power, and renders the blue-green-red-distinction and Superpower reputation meaningless imho. Also lorewise: Kaine promotes cooperation and wants to revert the Alliance back to its cooperative and representative roots, both her and Mahon serve the Alliance and the Idea of the Alliance, in their own respective ways, so why do their agents have to be flat out hostile? Same goes for the Empire: They are mostly family, Denton dated Aisling for some time, and now they are all equally hostile?
I would have expected that powers emerging within superpowers would initially be at least neutral to each other, except locally if in competition over a specific system.
That would have opened up possibilities for a lot of lore development, political events, shifting alliances, GalNet articles, etc.
Before, when I was pledged to Denton, I was greated as fellow imperial, not allied, but not hostile either, in Arissa´s or Aislings domains, unless taking part in a CZ. Now, after pledging with Kaine, I got attacked without warning by a Mahon agent, inside the safe zone of a starport (!), during auto-dock, and am flagged "hostile" in Gateway. Doesn´t make sense. The switch from political rivals to opposing warlords feels a little sudden. And, as I said, like missed potential

We just want everyone to enjoy a 15% discount, is that so bad?

 

[Tifu]

I think that, between allies, there should be systems that are sacrosanct (ie. no hostilities) - Gateway or Cubeo for example. But in contested areas where two erstwhile allies are at loggerheads then anything goes.

And if a certain threshold in contested areas is reached, then there should be a state of war between two former friendly powers.

 

[Rubbernuke]

First, that is your personal preference, that´s why you pledged with Archon. fair enough.
Second: I didn´t want everyone to be holding hands with everyone, I wanted a tad more dynamic, more spread for the range of hostility - conflicting loyalties - awkward truce - general indifference - fragile balance - grudging cooperation - peace and pancakes for all. Like, range for upper level dynamics. I wrote, paraphrased: tensions and loyalties should be allowed to change and shift. Did you read my post? I am perfectly ok with Archon being hostile to everyone, or Grom. I am perfectly ok with the possibility of civil war in the Empire breaking out at some point.
But I was questioning stratifying everything to "general free for all" by default in an instant.

Because not everyone will agree to do something in this new Powerplay. It barely worked in the old one because the power groups were the powers and could (mostly) direct relations with each other. I've also seen what this ultimately leads to- stagnation- as people seek safety through stability.

So no. Fighting, duplicity and a thirst for supremacy should be the only driver here.

 

[Rubbernuke]

More feedback: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...fleets-by-using-combat-zone-mechanics.629336/

 

[Nowski]

Only one thing bugs me just a little:
Why are all powers hostile to each other by default? It seems to defeat the idea of superpowers like the alliance or Imperium, it basically reduces the politics to 1 layer

I can agree different levels of hostility between powers would make sense from a lore POV, but I guess the critical factor is complexity.

The new Powerplay is already pretty complex with all the various activities and system types, penalty modifiers, Ethos bonuses, commodity types, control ranges, ...

With this design, adding different antipathy levels between Powers would mean more dependencies and restrictions on mission types, maybe new mission types, commodities, who knows what else..

It's already quite a bit to implement and quite a bit for players to get a handle on, so I can definitely see why designers might say it's already complex enough and call a halt.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I think that, between allies, there should be systems that are sacrosanct (ie. no hostilities) - Gateway or Cubeo for example. But in contested areas where two erstwhile allies are at loggerheads then anything goes.

HQ systems are fairly sacrosanct even between enemies - after all, you can't undermine them, they don't need to fortify them, so the most you can do is mildly inconvenience someone using it as a stronghold to pick up PP cargo, and you're probably better off doing that in the system they're taking it to.