Have Powerplay Power Benefits crippled the Federation?

[Fedifensor]

The current Powerplay rankings as of today (4/15/25) show the Federation far behind the Alliance, Empire, and Independents in system control:
Empire (all factions): 3881 systems, 254 strongholds
Independents (all factions): 3219 systems, 221 strongholds
Alliance (all factions): 2102 systems, 105 strongholds
Federation (all factions): 1276 systems, 115 strongholds

Alliance: Edmund Mahon (#1, 1450 systems, 64 strongholds), Nakato Kaine (#8, 652 systems, 41 strongholds)
Empire: Aisling Duval (#2, 1424 systems, 89 strongholds), Arissa Lavigny-Duval (#3, 1352 systems, 104 strongholds), Denton Patreus (#9, 636 systems, 33 strongholds), Zemina Torval (#12, 469 systems, 28 strongholds)
Federation: Jerome Archer (#6, 754 systems, 70 strongholds), Felicia Winters (#11, 522 systems, 45 strongholds)
Independent: Yuri Grom (#4, 1029 systems, 51 strongholds), Li Yong-Rui (#5, 842 systems, 89 strongholds), Pranav Antal (#7, 717 systems, 48 strongholds), Archon Delaine (#10, 631 systems, 33 strongholds)

There are a few mitigating factors. Obviously, even though they're grouped together above, the Independents are not united and can be counted as completely separate entities. The Empire is ahead on systems because they have 4 factions compared to the 2 each for Alliance and Federation. Still, it's apparent that Mahon is the strongest single faction, while the Empire far outpaces the other governments. Solo, the current President of the Federation is 11th of 12 factions, with only the weakest of four Empire factions behind her. If Jerome Archer and Felicia Winters were combined into a single entity, they still would only be #4 on the list - behind Mahon and both Duvals.

It's clear that Powerplay 1.0 is responsible for some of the discrepancies. Everyone knew who they needed to work for in order to get Prismatic Shields or the other popular ship systems, and some factions took advantage of the pre 2.0 gameplay loops. However, 2.0 has only continued or magnified these discrepancies. The rank rewards each faction offers definitely has an impact on what Power you choose. It appears that extra profits on food, medicine, and salvage aren't helping the new President of the Federation gain support. Archer seems to be doing a bit better by offering reduced weapons module cost and increased bounty payouts, but he's still well behind the major players in the Empire and Alliance. Mahon's trade bond bonus on sales is apparently drawing lots of supporters. Even the Independents have the triple threat of Yuri Grom offering bonuses to exploration and trade along with weapon discounts.

Is this a situation beyond fixing? Past rewards have built up strong loyalty for certain factions, and the current system rewards are skewed to others, with the Federation left in the dark. What reasons do people have to sign up for the factions with middling rewards and no momentum?

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

1.0 is responsible for all of the discrepancies. Player count plays a part (look at the rankings on Inara for relative player numbers pledged ). Archer has been one of the fastest growing in PP2.0 (Winters has more middling growth with a slightly smaller player base and some losses in the early part of 2.0). Which in any case hasn't been going long enough to make any meaningful difference.

1.0 was a broken system so I wouldn't read.... anything? into it.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

If you want to factor some unfortunate events from 1.0 into the calculation, there's having Grom placed in systems next to Hudson and become an enemy (they apparently were originally run by a former Aisling group and are part of the 5 power ZYADA imperial alliance) and Torval next to Winters and used as a disposable weapon to hobble Winters by the other Imperial powers.

But the main thing was massive use of collusion exploits that were possible in PP1.0 and resulted in both Federal powers losing large swaths of their territory.

Edit - I guess an honourable mention goes to FDev's decision to empty Archer's whole bubble around Sol at the end of the Thargoid war that he then had to fight tooth and nail vs. Imperial powers to get back. Just losing the systems themselves, that were well-fortified, was apparently worth 10 million control points, godhanded up in smoke.

 

[zimms]

Yeah, the game has been rigged against them from the start. They sit in the middle surrounded on all sides, providing an easy enemy for all the others.

Other soft factors were that the Alliance were the "good guys", Aisling has her feet pix admirers and ALD is a straight up better version of Hudson/Archer (130% bounty bonus instead of 100%). The only thing the Feds have going for them is Sol.

 

[Fedifensor]

I hadn't included the fact that the Federation is in the middle of the other Powers, and that's a pretty significant disadvantage.

I don't understand why the Empire gets four factions when the other superpowers only get two - even if everything else were equal, the Empire would still have twice as many systems for that fact alone.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I don't understand why the Empire gets four factions when the other superpowers only get two - even if everything else were equal, the Empire would still have twice as many systems for that fact alone.

In Powerplay 1 it was a significant advantage, and one entirely generated because the Frontier of 2015 was thinking of Powerplay more as a story-related feature - and the Empire had more plot characters than the Federation - than as a competitive one, and also massively misjudging how much people would care about superpowers as opposed to the individual Power characters (in lore Torval and Aisling hate each other, for example, considerably more than either really cares about Archer)

In Powerplay 2 it's a very marginal disadvantage if viewed through a superpower-level perspective, and irrelevant otherwise.

In the long-term, Powerplay 2 system counts will end up in quite a different order to the current one, mostly related to their active player levels. But we're looking at 5-10 years long-term, because system counts change a lot slower than in Powerplay 1.

 

[EzriPrism]

I would like to point out that despite Mahon, Aisling, and Kaine are effectively turned off due to pods and rare goods merit generation being disabled, Mahon continues to have steady player numbers, Kaine has attracted a number of alliance/Indy player groups and Indy commanders, and AD continues to see her numbers increase. Winters, while also having pods disabled, is still strong in trading and humanitarian activities. The question is not "is the federation at a disadvantage" it's "is the federation willing to adapt" and start taking different approaches both diplomatically and strategically. The federation is diplomatically isolated and it put itself there, it chose to violate the Thargoid war ceasefire, or at least subvert the agreement, it chose to turmoil Mahon and aggressively expand into the alliance, it chose to burn bridges instead of build them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I would like to point out that despite Mahon, Aisling, and Kaine are effectively turned off due to pods and rare goods merit generation being disabled, Mahon continues to have steady player numbers, Kaine has attracted a number of alliance/Indy player groups and Indy commanders, and AD continues to see her numbers increase. Winters, while also having pods disabled, is still strong in trading and humanitarian activities. The question is not "is the federation at a disadvantage" it's "is the federation willing to adapt" and start taking different approaches both diplomatically and strategically. The federation is diplomatically isolated and it put itself there, it chose to violate the Thargoid war ceasefire, or at least subvert the agreement, it chose to turmoil Mahon and aggressively expand into the alliance, it chose to burn bridges instead of build them.

The issue for me there is....what you list is playing the game while everyone else is like "after you! No, after you! NO, after you, no after you!"

In the end its PP historically allowing stasis rather than actually fight as you are supposed to, and that rather fight selfishly you get ZYADA (and to be honest FUC too, although its 2 v 5 there) etc. In PP1 at least only the Feds and The King[tm] actually wanted to do that- in the end PP is about conquest and not simple gardening.

So I'd rather see an isolated Federation that stirs the pot than the enforced diplomatic stasis that settles onto Powerplay. Luckily these days power groups != the power as they did in PP1.

 

[Rebel Yell]

It's clear that Powerplay 1.0 is responsible for some of the discrepancies.

Carrying over the PP1 territories into PP2 was the biggest mistake they might have done in years.

Then we can discuss about the unbalanced perks, the bugs and the exploits which are now affecting the PP2 framework.

 

[Mordred115]

with only the weakest of four Empire factions behind her

Oi who are you calling weak... since 2.0 launched Torval has gained over 120 systems and cut the distance to 11th place by more than 2/3rds...

On a serious note though, FDev making 4 imperial powers rather than 3 (especially considering Patreus and Torvals proximity) is probably responsible for a large part of the problems that have occurred with powerplay over the years. Whilst I am committed Imperial and follow ZYADA at all times, one must wonder whether it would have come about if there were 3 equal size and strength imperial powers, rather than 2 big ones and 1 medium one and 1 tactical nuke (Torval to Winters in powerplay 1).

 

[Fedifensor]

We're not going to see them retroactively change the factions or world control at this point. What needs to happen is a realignment that addresses current issues:

• There are too many Empire factions. A story change that removes one of these factions (through death or retirement) would address this, but has to be done in a way that doesn't negate the efforts made by the players in that faction. Removing Zemina Torval and allowing her followers to move to a different Empire faction without negating their Rank seems to be the best solution, though the question remains on what to do with the worlds aligned to her.
• Incentives need to be given to balance participation among factions. Better rewards for the weaker factions would be one option, or running Community Goals that give an incentive to sign up to the weaker factions.
• Fixing the nonfunctional portions of Powerplay like Rare Goods and Escape Pod recovery would help the factions that provide bonuses to those activities.
• The Federation is almost completely surrounded, while other factions only have to defend part of their borders. Not sure how to fix this - maybe some sort of defensive bonus based on what percentage of the power's borders are in conflict.

 

[Rebel Yell]

We're not going to see them retroactively change the factions or world control at this point. What needs to happen is a realignment that addresses current issues:

• There are too many Empire factions. A story change that removes one of these factions (through death or retirement) would address this, but has to be done in a way that doesn't negate the efforts made by the players in that faction. Removing Zemina Torval and allowing her followers to move to a different Empire faction without negating their Rank seems to be the best solution, though the question remains on what to do with the worlds aligned to her.
• Incentives need to be given to balance participation among factions. Better rewards for the weaker factions would be one option, or running Community Goals that give an incentive to sign up to the weaker factions.
• Fixing the nonfunctional portions of Powerplay like Rare Goods and Escape Pod recovery would help the factions that provide bonuses to those activities.
• The Federation is almost completely surrounded, while other factions only have to defend part of their borders. Not sure how to fix this - maybe some sort of defensive bonus based on what percentage of the power's borders are in conflict.

...my additional 2 cents on the table: I'd restore the linear diminishing "strenght" in holding systems far from the Powers' capitals (i.e. a very Roman Empire "limitation").

The frontline penalty mechanic provides a clear advantage to expansionist/high manpower Powers, whilst smaller powers, historically clustered in either low density system areas (partially countered with Trailblazers) or around their capitals for territorial reasons, are in clear disadvantage (and they did inherit such disadvantage from PP1).

 

[Danieros]

...my additional 2 cents on the table: I'd restore the linear diminishing "strenght" in holding systems far from the Powers' capitals (i.e. a very Roman Empire "limitation").

The frontline penalty mechanic provides a clear advantage to expansionist/high manpower Powers, whilst smaller powers, historically clustered in either low density system areas (partially countered with Trailblazers) or around their capitals for territorial reasons, are in clear disadvantage (and they did inherit such disadvantage from PP1).

That was a terrible mechanic and it is great that it got removed. It fundamentally reduced conflict, since a system could be good for one power, but bad for another and in some extreme cases systems that were only good for a single power.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I would like to point out that despite Mahon, Aisling, and Kaine are effectively turned off due to pods and rare goods merit generation being disabled, Mahon continues to have steady player numbers, Kaine has attracted a number of alliance/Indy player groups and Indy commanders, and AD continues to see her numbers increase. Winters, while also having pods disabled, is still strong in trading and humanitarian activities. The question is not "is the federation at a disadvantage" it's "is the federation willing to adapt" and start taking different approaches both diplomatically and strategically. The federation is diplomatically isolated and it put itself there, it chose to violate the Thargoid war ceasefire, or at least subvert the agreement, it chose to turmoil Mahon and aggressively expand into the alliance, it chose to burn bridges instead of build them.

I could correct you on your colourful view of the Federation player base on all those points (e.g. we have active diplomatic initiatives ongoing with the majority force in Kaine, and with Mahon, currently) but let's stick to the facts that Mahon has good trade benefits (as I understand it) and Kaine has excellent benefits in mining, widely considered the most powerful tool in reinforcement and especially, acquisition. AD has faltered since the Sol drubbing and some diplomatic fails since. But at the end of the day player numbers count more than any of these things.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

I hadn't included the fact that the Federation is in the middle of the other Powers, and that's a pretty significant disadvantage.

I don't understand why the Empire gets four factions when the other superpowers only get two - even if everything else were equal, the Empire would still have twice as many systems for that fact alone.

Well they're not 4 powers, they're an alliance of 5 powers since they effectively co-opted Grom through the ZYADA alliance. A cell of AD players did their best to co-opt Kaine too but appear to have failed.

 

[Rebel Yell]

That was a terrible mechanic and it is great that it got removed. It fundamentally reduced conflict, since a system could be good for one power, but bad for another and in some extreme cases systems that were only good for a single power.

It was flawed in PP1 because of the CC mechanic, but in PP2 it would just translate in making the border territories much more dynamic, with particular advantage to combat, given that PP2 offensive (effective) activities are now limited to settlement data raiding. If one power X builds a SH at 300ly from home and 50ly from power Y capital, it should be quite easy for Y to kick X notwithstanding the system resources.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

[*]There are too many Empire factions. A story change that removes one of these factions (through death or retirement) would address this, but has to be done in a way that doesn't negate the efforts made by the players in that faction. Removing Zemina Torval and allowing her followers to move to a different Empire faction without negating their Rank seems to be the best solution, though the question remains on what to do with the worlds aligned to her.

Long-term the number of Empire factions (in Powerplay 2) will probably marginally disadvantage the Empire, because supporters of one can't effectively support the others in most cases. Consolidating them into a single "Emperor Grom" faction would just make them a lot stronger in the long term even if they didn't keep all their existing systems in the short term.

[*]The Federation is almost completely surrounded, while other factions only have to defend part of their borders. Not sure how to fix this - maybe some sort of defensive bonus based on what percentage of the power's borders are in conflict.

Trailblazers fixes [1] that, because it provides so many uncontestable Acquisition opportunities for every power - even the Federal ones - that there will be no need to engage in contested Acquisition (and certainly no need to go through the horribly inefficient process of Undermining) ever again. Both Hudson and Winters have perfectly good routes to the rapidly expanding fringes of the bubble where they too can get as many systems as they could ever want.

(People will still do it for fun from time to time, but it won't materially affect the number of systems controlled by each Power in the long term)


[1] Now, if you'd like Powerplay to be primarily about inter-power fights, sorry. This week has a roughly 15:1 ratio in favour of Reinforcement over Undermining and the scope of changes to both personal and strategic incentives needed to get a proper inter-power war going are "maybe in Powerplay 3 in another ten years" in nature. On the bright side, this does mean that it doesn't really matter if some powers are a bit weaker or a bit stronger. Just means that they'll grow a bit slower than the others.

 

[Fedifensor]

Long-term the number of Empire factions (in Powerplay 2) will probably marginally disadvantage the Empire, because supporters of one can't effectively support the others in most cases. Consolidating them into a single "Emperor Grom" faction would just make them a lot stronger in the long term even if they didn't keep all their existing systems in the short term.

That ignores the simple advantage of the separate factions not attacking each other. Yes, you can technically undermine another Empire faction, but that's not what seems to be happening.

Trailblazers fixes [1] that, because it provides so many uncontestable Acquisition opportunities for every power - even the Federal ones - that there will be no need to engage in contested Acquisition (and certainly no need to go through the horribly inefficient process of Undermining) ever again. Both Hudson and Winters have perfectly good routes to the rapidly expanding fringes of the bubble where they too can get as many systems as they could ever want.

Exploited systems are vulnerable. You can string acquisitions out far from the bubble, but they mean nothing if an enemy Power can knock out the systems supporting them. There's also a difference between a well-developed system with a robust market and stations that shovel out endless tons of Biowaste.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

That ignores the simple advantage of the separate factions not attacking each other. Yes, you can technically undermine another Empire faction, but that's not what seems to be happening.

Sure, but having four/five of them at least allows people who want to RP differently to "the United Glorious Empire" a chance (or just the occasional bit of sporadic undermining from people who don't really care about that and just want some merits). Collapsing them to one would enforce that internal truce (making many of them very happy, I expect). It's not an advantage for ZYADA to have five sides rather than one, not any more.

Exploited systems are vulnerable. You can string acquisitions out far from the bubble, but they mean nothing if an enemy Power can knock out the systems supporting them.

The theoretical possibility to knock out a weakly cross-defended system means absolutely nothing if no-one ever does it. If you're extending in a different direction to everyone else, they have big Beyond Frontline Penalties to discourage them trying, too, plus they gain absolutely nothing in acquirable territory of their own should they succeed.

I can think of three cases where a Fortified has been destroyed to knock out its entire cluster since Powerplay 2 started, and two of those were very early on. I might have missed a fourth, perhaps. It's not something which happens enough to affect the results much.

Meanwhile we've gone from 9% systems being Fortified or better at the start of PP2 to 23% today ... and from 1% to 7% being Strongholds. Most Powers have cross-reinforced enough already that there won't be many more opportunities to do that again which don't involve multiple simultaneous undermines of Fortified systems, and the opportunities are only going to fall further.

There's also a difference between a well-developed system with a robust market and stations that shovel out endless tons of Biowaste.

Not for Powerplay 2 purposes there isn't.
- it's a "1" on the system count whatever it has inside. No more "they need to actually be decent to give CC".
- sure, you'll be at Standard "System Strength Penalty" but that only matters if you get attacked, which you won't.
- almost all reinforcement methods are not dependent in the slightest on the station's export options. A Colony economy has plenty of perfectly good imports if you really want to go for "high profit trades"; every other reinforcement option is economy-independent entirely.
- if the Architect never got as far as building Odyssey settlements, great, that's one of the few things more effective as an Undermining option unavailable there. Not that you're going to be attacked.

 

[Rebel Yell]

- if the Architect never got as far as building Odyssey settlements, great, that's one of the few things more effective as an Undermining option unavailable there. Not that you're going to be attacked.

....indeed, and that's why I'd like to have a much more reliable method to earn Undermining merits with combat and not depending on random spawns.