Powerplay How about rewarding players that fortify systems that actually NEED fortifying?

I fear the day that over-fortifying a system stops (or slows) giving merits. Those people fortifying to thousands of % over the triggers are simply looking for the fastest, laziest way to make their 50,000,000 salary and go. If fortification supplies stop being the easiest way, then it'll be preparation merits, or if preparations stop being easy it'll be fortifying more systems than is good for a power and driving CC up too high.

If mechanics are added which limit player actions based on what's "bad" or "good" then the Powers lose a lot of freedom of action. Powers prepare "bad" loss-making expansions in hostile territory all the time. They also prepare "bad" systems in the interests of player groups, or to close holes that other powers could choose to weaponize against them.

With freedom of choice comes freedom to fail. It's important to give players a chance to make bad strategies, because then the good ones may shine through.
I do wonder though if Powerplay has proven that this way of thinking (trusting players to do the right thing) just shows a lot of players are idiots or don't care, nullifying any positives from the design. Being honest there is a hard-core of players who do indeed care and do the right thing, but are constantly fighting either idiots (5C) or those who are ambivalent which is more like babysitting than being fun. For me its telling that much of PPs updates / planned / might happen / dreams etc are more to do with trying to rationalise / temper poor decisions rather than add anything extra that might attract more players.

For Powerplay to be self sustaining and 5C proof I do wonder if it has to be more like the BGS (i.e pseudo random expansion / contraction) that decentralizes a lot of the choices (in essence everything is a local branch) and decouples negative outcomes from expansions (which 5C use to good effect, just as weaponised expansions are). It would diminish the strategic aspect as we know it, but might make for a more granular territorial game overall.
 
Some time ago i suggested that power play cargo should work like expansive commodity with supply and demand depending on level of fortification, level of undermining and distance from HQ, this would eliminate sorry but i lack better word idiotic allocation mechanic and give reason to help power even if you are just a module grinder.
 
Some time ago i suggested that power play cargo should work like expansive commodity with supply and demand depending on level of fortification, level of undermining and distance from HQ, this would eliminate sorry but i lack better word idiotic allocation mechanic and give reason to help power even if you are just a module grinder.
Yeah, there is really no reason why merits received by the player should actually mirror the merits delivered by the player. Just as CC+- is shown on GalMap, a % merit modifier could show on there as well.

Shed mechanics could be decoupled from the peversely convoluted system we have at present, contested systems via weaponised expansions are a retrograde and entirely negative approach to competition between powers.

Far better in my view would be requiring expansions be linked territorially, so farflung expansions need to be 'supported' by connected control bubbles, and new Powerplay Commodities need be controlled to facilitate stage 3 & further expansions. You can still expand without them, but it puts triggers far more in your favour if you have sufficient commodities in your bubbles.

There are lots of possibilities within it, ive left specifics deliberately vague. But it requires minimal programming time to implement, many many times less than the what are you doing scanner, for example..

This kind of approach does away with the negativity of current strategical approaches and replaces with constructive alternatives that allow for real 'campaigning' with multiple steps that can be forseen by others who strive to compete or block your progress.

It wouldnt have to come down to a pure numbers game, different commodities conferring different benefits to the power(s) and their players, could give powers a menu of options, monopolising or dominating certain resources conferring extra bonuses. Economic strangleholds attacked by coalitions, and you have a far more vibrant powerplay environment that is far more visible on the powerplay map to new/random players.

Decoupling power modules from pledge duration is IMO essential to moving things forward. Dragging players with no strategic interest through a powerplay hedge backwards, for an entire year, is no way to encourage them to engage. Teach them a true meaning of hatred? Yes, it does seem to do that, very effectively..
 
Yeah, there is really no reason why merits received by the player should actually mirror the merits delivered by the player. Just as CC+- is shown on GalMap, a % merit modifier could show on there as well.

Shed mechanics could be decoupled from the peversely convoluted system we have at present, contested systems via weaponised expansions are a retrograde and entirely negative approach to competition between powers.

Far better in my view would be requiring expansions be linked territorially, so farflung expansions need to be 'supported' by connected control bubbles, and new Powerplay Commodities need be controlled to facilitate stage 3 & further expansions. You can still expand without them, but it puts triggers far more in your favour if you have sufficient commodities in your bubbles.

There are lots of possibilities within it, ive left specifics deliberately vague. But it requires minimal programming time to implement, many many times less than the what are you doing scanner, for example..

This kind of approach does away with the negativity of current strategical approaches and replaces with constructive alternatives that allow for real 'campaigning' with multiple steps that can be forseen by others who strive to compete or block your progress.

It wouldnt have to come down to a pure numbers game, different commodities conferring different benefits to the power(s) and their players, could give powers a menu of options, monopolising or dominating certain resources conferring extra bonuses. Economic strangleholds attacked by coalitions, and you have a far more vibrant powerplay environment that is far more visible on the powerplay map to new/random players.

Decoupling power modules from pledge duration is IMO essential to moving things forward. Dragging players with no strategic interest through a powerplay hedge backwards, for an entire year, is no way to encourage them to engage. Teach them a true meaning of hatred? Yes, it does seem to do that, very effectively..
Stop having great ideas and making me want to care!
 
It seems that 75% of all players fortifying is just hauling supplies to nearest system, fortifying it to 3000% or something crazy like that. Why not cut merit earnings in half for systems that don't need it, while perhaps doubling it for systems that does need it? Why would this be so hard or problematic? PP has been around a long time now, isn't it about time it got adjusted? I mean this tiny adjustment would be very very easy to implement, but I believe it would mean a lot to powerplay. I mean, I do feel like helping my PP faction, but I really don't like being punished with farther travel distances when actually helping fortifying, when I can get the same amount of rewards by traveling much shorter without actually doing any good.
It is not; 'to the nearest system'. It is to the systems at the top of the lists, of systems to be fortified.

I have made a study of this and it is a fact. Towards the end of the cycle, go down the lists and at the bottom of the lists; you will find systems, close by, that have had little done to them.

It is laziness, in its purest form. Making the list, so that the systems are listed, farthest away at the top, going down to the closest, will basically solve the issue.
 
I think the whole problem of PP is down to not having real values from planets with real vital and dynamic resources. All that could be linked to the value of merits and since the basis is dynamic so would the resulting value of merits and we'd end up having some true and dynamic gameplay. Most if not all of Martin's objections would fall apart in this case. Objections, that sound to me like "massive multiplayer and common sense are inherently and mutually exclusive, get over it!". Which probably might actually be the case...
As it stands, the only way to play PP "right" is to get access to totally counter-intuitive insider knowledge. Meanwhile I've learned the ropes but never learned to love that sort of gameplay. Ostensibly (and probably was initially meant this way), it looks like 'chess for many' but turns out to be cheesy nonsense for a few.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that bad strategies and strategies that do not make a CC profit are not always the same thing.
The problem is that both look the same to the game, and FD are tying themselves in knots trying to come up with solutions that tell them apart.
 
The way I'm reading this is that you just want to make use of passing pp weapon grinders ? Which I can totally understand but, some powers get far more pp weapon grinders than others. Just imagine the merit difference gain between players grinding for prismatics vs the mining lance. So as it stands I'd say it's quite a fair system because only the true pp players are supporting their chosen power.
 
The problem is that both look the same to the game, and FD are tying themselves in knots trying to come up with solutions that tell them apart.
Unless they work Deep Blue into the game engine I'm not sure any of their "solutions" are going to do that by themselves.

Anyway, it seems better to me to have the mindless zombie hordes grinding over-fortification of the nearest system, which (bar some unlikely-to-ever-happen scenarios) hurts no-one any further, rather than preparing some nearby Yaque, which would.
 
Unless they work Deep Blue into the game engine I'm not sure any of their "solutions" are going to do that by themselves.

Anyway, it seems better to me to have the mindless zombie hordes grinding over-fortification of the nearest system, which (bar some unlikely-to-ever-happen scenarios) hurts no-one any further, rather than preparing some nearby Yaque, which would.
But again it shows Powerplay is dysfunctional in that by design you accept this horrific waste. It is the lesser of two problems but it still shows most players as clueless or not caring.
 
Designer of power play was some sort of not fulfilled game board maker, it should be much easier, intuitive and not requiring work within big communities in order to not harm power while having good intentions, not sure i can point 1 thing that is not broken in current power play, but still it's most engaging part of game for me, maybe because level of immersion in everything else is even worse:)
 
Designer of power play was some sort of not fulfilled game board maker, it should be much easier, intuitive and not requiring work within big communities in order to not harm power while having good intentions, not sure i can point 1 thing that is not broken in current power play, but still it's most engaging part of game for me, maybe because level of immersion in everything else is even worse:)
I stopped playing for 4 years after PP came with 1.3. It's that bad.
 
Top Bottom