Powerplay How I would like for Powerplay to be.

[Robert Maynard]

Good. So, basically Powerplay affects bgs already in the very same way I explained it would in my proposal.

You know what the real difference is? Right now a pmf, especially one closer to HQs, has no mathematical way to got free of that Power, and even if it's far away there's no way for them to do the same if the system is actually fortified.

So you are basically afraid of something that right now is even worse for minor factions.

At this time players in any game mode can pledge and affect Powerplay - so can, if they wish, do something about which Power controls their system. The lack of a means for Factions to boot out a sitting Power seems to be an obvious omission in the feature.

Can we say you are making it a problem out of it just for a matter of principle because of the open thing? Without actually knowing that with the mechanics I explained factions would have at least an opportunity to fight to gain the Power of their choice? Basically you are flooding again. Anyway, thanks for your contribution, I think that it's a shame it would not be a way to make the galaxy a little bit more different. Can we agree on the fact we disagree?

We can certainly agree to disagree.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

At this time players in any game mode can pledge and affect Powerplay - so can, if they wish, do something about which Power controls their system. The lack of a means for Factions to boot out a sitting Power seems to be an obvious omission in the feature.

We can certainly agree to disagree.

No they can't, because of the intrinsic mechanic of Powerplay: once a system is fortified it's almost impossible for it to go turmoil. It's something every competent powerplayer knows. The irony: my proposal would give PMFs a possibility. As I said before: only Powerplay nerds allowed, and there was a practical reason I said so. It's really hard to talk about advanced game mechanics when you have to answer to banal questions and point out obvious mistakes.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

One thing about things like open-ended UM/fort and more fluid territorial loss mechanic - they could potentially get very labour intensive. Burnout can be an issue in long strategies in PP. Constantly fighting fires and having to modify strategies and be very reactive could be exciting for a time, but might it wear thin after long enough? The current level of inertia in the system means that you do get the odd quiet cycle or can afford to be casual, and one cycle of slack contributions seldom results in cataclysm. "Always on" could put a real burden on the core players (not me ), who sometimes can seem overburdened anyway, and this being a game and not an actual war "always on" is a hard ask.

Another point in that direction is that for territory to feel like territory, it has to have some persistence. Planetside 2 for instance lost some points for me because territory turns over so quickly (and even resets regularly) - it's fine but a different feel.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong, perhaps more fluidity in territory means that no-one blinks at losing a few systems, in the knowledge that the same fluidity applies to territory they want to take, or to take back.

In terms of how you might soften that aspect of the OP, you could apply some diminishing returns to open-ended undermining, so that fort has an advantage, but the story's still never over till weekly tick. Or you could have two ways to turmoil, one similar to what we have now, the other with a much higher pair of triggers (say 10 or 20x the normal one) for turmoiling individual systems. You could have the latter as a race even - the first to hit their trigger successfully forts or turmoils he system (just a random thought). The big triggers mean there wouldn't be easy wins for the attacker.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

One thing about things like open-ended UM/fort and more fluid territorial loss mechanic - they could potentially get very labour intensive. Burnout can be an issue in long strategies in PP. Constantly fighting fires and having to modify strategies and be very reactive could be exciting for a time, but might it wear thin after long enough? The current level of inertia in the system means that you do get the odd quiet cycle or can afford to be casual, and one cycle of slack contributions seldom results in cataclysm. "Always on" could put a real burden on the core players (not me ), who sometimes can seem overburdened anyway, and this being a game and not an actual war "always on" is a hard ask.

Another point in that direction is that for territory to feel like territory, it has to have some persistence. Planetside 2 for instance lost some points for me because territory turns over so quickly (and even resets regularly) - it's fine but a different feel.

On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong, perhaps more fluidity in territory means that no-one blinks at losing a few systems, in the knowledge that the same fluidity applies to territory they want to take, or to take back.

In terms of how you might soften that aspect of the OP, you could apply some diminishing returns to open-ended undermining, so that fort has an advantage, but the story's still never over till weekly tick. Or you could have two ways to turmoil, one similar to what we have now, the other with a much higher pair of triggers (say 10 or 20x the normal one) for turmoiling individual systems. You could have the latter as a race even - the first to hit their trigger successfully forts or turmoils he system (just a random thought). The big triggers mean there wouldn't be easy wins for the attacker.

Well that's what I think would happen in having competitive triggers even in fortification/undermining and systems going turmoil if their single income becomes negative.

Let's make an example!

A close to the HQ system would have a trigger favourable for the defendants, let's say 5,000 for fortification and 20,000 for undermining: those systems would be REALLY difficult to be actually lost of course, because basically it would need two straight cycles of huge opposition to free them. Not impossible, but extremly hard, which is very important in my opinion, giving a possibility to actually do some exceptional manouvers.

I talked about incomes and upkeeps, and even before of higher upkeeps in general. Let's say we have a formerly 5C system, with a really low income and a high upkeep, even higher than the income itself: if that system is canceled it would go in turmolil anyway, because its neat income would become negative, which I think it's the most interesting thing about this kind of mechanis.

Same would happen in case of opposing systems, another example: a Power controls a system with 100 income and 50 upkeep (I am already considering increased upkeeps), with a slightly favourable trigger (let's say 6,000 forts vs 12,000 undermining): if a enemy Power actually manage to cancel many CCs using a weaponised expansion, that system could even see its income reduced to a point it's lower than upkeep, making it even more difficult to keep.

It's a more "direct" way to engage Powerplay in a tactical way, with new opportunities for complexity and variability. I think it could work.

DISCLAIMER: I'm making up the numbers, I'm just giving a general idea, of course balancement and actual "numb er crunching" should be done by professionals, but I think the most important thing is the message, having a more dynamic Powerplay that does mmake things extremy hard but not mathematically impossible as they are right now.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

First of all, the widespread rejection of Open Only has nothing to do with casual gamers (you're just imagining things), but with the natural limitations of a brokered P2P network structure. If you don't understand that part, including the role port forwarding plays in the whole construct (nothing that can be enforced by any lawful means whatsoever, by the way), or simply want to continue to ignore the resulting obstacles and shortcomings, you can be as much a PP guru as you want, your proposal will fall flat on its face before it even has a chance to take off.

Open Only (whether with or without PP) is, in the best words of Sandro Sammarco, "desirable." Which, however, no one should confuse with "possible". Therefore, any proposal that makes Open Only mandatory is over for me at this point. Any further occupation with it is a waste of time, as much as brainstorming seems to be a popular hobby nowadays.

Dude, stay in topic. We are far over that. Have you got something meaningful to say about triggers, CCs or any other technical stuff? Because again: noted, you don't like open only. We have already moved on.

Jeez.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

You might like it that way. We are far from over it, quite the opposite. We haven't even really started...

So why are you still flooding this thread!

 

[Brrokk]

 

[Bard Voronwe]

I don't flood it any more than you do. And this is an open discussion forum, mind you, and you are not the one to determine who has to say what.

Same old same old, passive agressive behaviour to divert the discussion and making it useless for people trying to talk about game mechanics. Think gonna just ignore you, again, as I tried to do before. :/

 

[Ettanin]

Well I know that anything "open only" is very divisive in the community

It's a definite deal breaker.

a) the potential loss due to gankers and griefers can be extremely painful especially for the casual player.
b) This would be a paid-only feature on consoles.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Nope, next is getting back in topic, you should try this, it's more fun.

Anyway.

Or you could have two ways to turmoil, one similar to what we have now, the other with a much higher pair of triggers (say 10 or 20x the normal one) for turmoiling individual systems. You could have the latter as a race even - the first to hit their trigger successfully forts or turmoils he system (just a random thought). The big triggers mean there wouldn't be easy wins for the attacker.

I did not read very well this part, sorry. I'm not a fan to be honest of mixing up the old Powerplay with whatever new could ever be proposed, mostly because it would be clear that we'd have one more proficient way to do Powerplay and one less proficient, making the other basically meaningless.

If something will change the resulting game mechanic should be clear in its mechanism, and possibly avoid the flaws of the past, like making actually pledging a enemy Power the most proficient way to harm it.

 

[Dragsham]

As a layman just getting started in the minutea of PP. Can l ask that perhaps a consideration be given to us beginner's so we can follow this thread learning as we go. It's fascinating!
Done half a dozen weps modules from pp like most "dabblers", I wanna learn more. Currently farming merits with my dark ship.
I know you wanna intellectual discussion l just ask that it be jargon free and an allowance made for us noobs listening in.

Regards
o7

 

[Bard Voronwe]

As a layman just getting started in the minutea of PP. Can l ask that perhaps a consideration be given to us beginner's so we can follow this thread learning as we go. It's fascinating!
Done half a dozen weps modules from pp like most "dabblers", I wanna learn more. Currently farming merits with my dark ship.
I know you wanna intellectual discussion l just ask that it be jargon free and an allowance made for us noobs listening in.

Regards
o7

Wow that would be... complicated. And actually it would need another thread to explain exactly how Powerplay works and what's wrong with it. It's all about maths actually. Very counterintuitive maths.

EDIT

But of course you can ask things regarding some parts of the proposal, I'll try to make a (very condensed) comparison with current mechanics.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Wow @soloe I've just realized that I didn't answer your post (you know, with the flooding and all).

Similar to other online games I would suggest an open only approach with PvP-flags and PvP regions. Anarchy, Haz-Res, Conflict zones and uninhabited space would be PvP-regions, while inhabited space that is governed would only allow for PvP if the player is flagged as PvP. There would have to be a mechanism to prevent excessive mode switching imo. So either this would be a one time decision per account, or there would need to be a long cooldown. Above that, pledged players would always be able to attack other players pledged to enemy powers even if they are flagged as PvE.

I think this could be a good solution but material for another thread or proposal. Some months ago I proposed to add an "Open Friendly Mode" (in the context of a wide proposal about splitting the galaxy in two branches, an open only one and a mixed as the one we have now). Only thing I am afraid is that you would have even less probability to instance with other PvP flagged players, because you'd instance with the PvE ones too. So... it's complicated, and it's not very in topic with this thread, imho.

So how about it would work in both ways but at the same time have not a big impact? Picking up your "mission-driven" idea, a beneficial Power could grant inf bonuses to a minor faction, while only beneficial minor factions would spawn PP missions/cargo etc.

Actually what you are proposing has even a bigger impact than the (actually bland) effect I had imagined linked to alligeance. I think that Powerplay should help forging the local politics, not force them to be forged accordingly. They should be even opportuinities for the players. People should always have a possibility to win against all odds, given the right effort.

1. gift them to pledged players of rank 5 who have been pledged for 4 weeks at least.
2. Sell them on black markets in a powers space. You can buy as many as you wish but will be a marked enemy for the power for a period and it wouldbe possible to attack them if the attacker is pledged to the respective power.

1. We could probably have even more "casual 5C" merits that way considering that casuals should grind 10,000 merits to gain access to powerplay modules, so no thank you.
2. We are already flagged as enemies when we pledge. It would be redundant. Modules are just modules. Tech brokers are there for a reason, even if I would make those modules available by tech brokers only under the influence of that Power and only for materials, pledged CMDRs could have the advantage of buying those modules with credits.

 

[AlexCrooked]

Great article and great ideas. And like all great ideas and articles, it is littered with criticism of privately crabs.

 

[Bashy81]

I have a bunch of questions about the OP, if I may..

What would be the motivations (if any) for Powers to intentionally shed systems & how do you see that happening ?

With the current stalemate some Powers have long lulls between major conflicts. One or two would never be in a conflict if it wasnt brought to them.
Part of this is ethos-inspired.
Does the OP take that into account?

What is the overarching vision of what Powerplay should be? is it conflict always for everyone?
(Are you expecting to see conflicts lasting weeks & months, and some longer grinds, or continual warfare with sudden spikes of intensity?) Im trying to get a feel here for the change of pace & activity & organisation requirements (and I appreciate the answers would vary for feds vs imps, Alliance, Indies)

These might seem like leading-questions, and they are the kindve questions Utopians might be interested in. But I have a mechanics idea that might possibly be a good fit.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

What would be the motivations (if any) for Powers to intentionally shed systems & how do you see that happening ?

Basically "optimization": does it make sense to defend a system that, if fortified, would grant just a few CCs? It would be a progressive and natural process, and don't forget that canceled systems would go turmoil if the income is lower than the upkeep too.

With the current stalemate some Powers have long lulls between major conflicts. One or two would never be in a conflict if it wasnt brought to them.
Part of this is ethos-inspired.
Does the OP take that into account?

With a truly decentralized Powerplay (or if you want: a decentralized Powerplay with no harmful side effects as it is right now) we could have minor conflicts driven from local groups and major operations driven by larger communities: I think it fits with the proportions of the bubble (we're talking about a huge amount of systems). Another trigger for conquest would be the CG-like rewards: you'll need many control systems to have a larger possible number of CCs and reach a higher tier. So we'd have group and personal reasons to try and free systems to be conquered later (and keep the current ones fortified).

What is the overarching vision of what Powerplay should be? is it conflict always for everyone?
(Are you expecting to see conflicts lasting weeks & months, and some longer grinds, or continual warfare with sudden spikes of intensity?)

I honestly expect to see huge battles over some systems, but a progressively smarter use of weaponised too, and real time progression would lure players to hotspots such systems being fortified and undermined, but in reality we can't really know what tactics a group could adopt... Will they try to go full out against an enemy? Or will they try to fake a move to another system while another group will focus on another one later? That's really up to the players, but the fact that we'd not be driven by obscure maths is already an improvement (no more Google sheets!!!).

Shoot your ideas now.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Nope, next is getting back in topic, you should try this, it's more fun.

Anyway.

I did not read very well this part, sorry. I'm not a fan to be honest of mixing up the old Powerplay with whatever new could ever be proposed, mostly because it would be clear that we'd have one more proficient way to do Powerplay and one less proficient, making the other basically meaningless.

If something will change the resulting game mechanic should be clear in its mechanism, and possibly avoid the flaws of the past, like making actually pledging a enemy Power the most proficient way to harm it.

Okay I think my post was slightly confused. But - the "new" idea I had here was basically to have an extra trigger that's much larger. To get a system to actually turmoil you'd have to complete your OP's condition and also meet that trigger. So lets say you get to +100% UMing ahead of forting, then that successfully removes the income of the system, lets say making it net negative, but to get it to turmoil you'd have to hit the larger trigger as well. So lets say the triggers are 10000 for both fort and UM, then the higher trigger would be N×10000. If N=5, then 10000 UM and no forts would make it lose income, but 50000 would be needed for it to turmoil. Setting the value of N gives the developer a lever to pull to make it a bit harder to turmoil a system by UMing.

Increasing N makes systems a bit more secure and limits the number of systems that an attacker could turmoil (because the theoretical minimum number of merits they'll need per system is larger). In the other hand it makes bad systems harder to lose. So it's a trade off between those things.

Another way of creating a similar lever would be to just increase undermining triggers in general by some factor (the same as saying in your proposal that UMing needs to be M×100% ahead of fort for the system to be undermined).

It's hard to think if my suggestion is a good idea/necessary though because the way you'd probably strip systems from a power would be by contesting CC through expansions first. In your proposal, whatever makes it easier in principle to strip a single target system also makes it easier for the defender to counter-attack your weaponised systems. So that the original attack maybe isn't so easy anyway; it is itself vulnerable. I think I need an interaction model to see the feedbacks XD.

What I'm really looking for anyway is a dial for the developer to control the speed at which territory can change hands.

 

[Bard Voronwe]

Okay I think my post was slightly confused. But - the "new" idea I had here was basically to have an extra trigger that's much larger. To get a system to actually turmoil you'd have to complete your OP's condition and also meet that trigger. So lets say you get to +100% UMing ahead of forting, then that successfully removes the income of the system, lets say making it net negative, but to get it to turmoil you'd have to hit the larger trigger as well. So lets say the triggers are 10000 for both fort and UM, then the higher trigger would be N×10000. If N=5, then 10000 UM and no forts would make it lose income, but 50000 would be needed for it to turmoil. Setting the value of N gives the developer a lever to pull to make it a bit harder to turmoil a system by UMing.

Increasing N makes systems a bit more secure and limits the number of systems that an attacker could turmoil (because the theoretical minimum number of merits they'll need per system is larger). In the other hand it makes bad systems harder to lose. So it's a trade off between those things.

Another way of creating a similar lever would be to just increase undermining triggers in general by some factor (the same as saying in your proposal that UMing needs to be M×100% ahead of fort for the system to be undermined).

Ok now I understand what you mean. Basically the idea is to have two triggers, one to nullify income for the general count of CCs and the other one for turmoil. The only thing I am afraid you don't consider is opponent's fortification (the very fact that a system would be fortified would obviously make the trigger proportionally higher) but let's cruch some numbers considering the current formulas for different distances to HQs.

	50 LYs to HQ	75 LYs to HQ	100 LYs to HQ	125 LYs to HQ
Fort Trigger	5,766	6,871	8,462	10,538
UM Itrigger	12,779	9,234	7,750	6,969

The distance where triggers are the same is 93,84 LYs btw.
Considering these numbers your triggers for actually turmoiling a system would be too high in my opinion (x5 is too much honestly), lets make that N a more viable 2 and actually I do like what I see: 25,000, 18,500, 15,000 and 14,000; but let's not forget opposition too! if you fortify a system that trigger will become progressively higher. But these numbers should be tweaked by developers, considering many other factors (like how big they want a Power to become, if they want to add more Powers etc).

Anyway I kind of like the idea of the "double trigger", it gives a sense of progression, basically the attacker would need an extra effort required to actually try and shake off that system, I think the sweet spot might be +100% to undermine a system and +150% (or +200%if you want more stability) to turmoil it. But yeah as you said loss system would basically stay so I'm not pretty sure it would be the best way to do things.

What I'm really looking for anyway is a dial for the developer to control the speed at which territory can change hands.

Was thinking about that too, it would be interesting to actually have some kind of "invasion" mechanic, like another percentual trigger to make it possible for a Power to "take" an enemy system. For example, let's say a Power goes +300% against another one with their merits alone, a conflict exclusive for players from the two contestants could fire up during the cycle for domination, if the Power confirms the +300% undermining then they directly conquer the system the next cycle. It would be something very difficult to achieve (+300%) and a viable alternative to other tactics.

EDIT

Wait: +300% for having a conflict where the attacking Power will have the opportunity after that cycle to directly try to conquer the very same system with its rightful triggers, not becoming the one controlling immediately.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

Ok now I understand what you mean. Basically the idea is to have two triggers, one to nullify income for the general count of CCs and the other one for turmoil. The only thing I am afraid you don't consider is opponent's fortification (the very fact that a system would be fortified would obviously make the trigger proportionally higher) but let's cruch some numbers considering the current formulas for different distances to HQs.

	50 LYs to HQ	75 LYs to HQ	100 LYs to HQ	125 LYs to HQ
Fort Trigger	5,766	6,871	8,462	10,538
UM Itrigger	12,779	9,234	7,750	6,969

The distance where triggers are the same is 93,84 LYs btw.
Considering these numbers your triggers for actually turmoiling a system would be too high in my opinion (x5 is too much honestly), lets make that N a more viable 2 and actually I do like what I see: 25,000, 18,500, 15,000 and 14,000; but let's not forget opposition too! if you fortify a system that trigger will become progressively higher. But these numbers should be tweaked by developers, considering many other factors (like how big they want a Power to become, if they want to add more Powers etc).

Right so I'm not sure I was clear, your trigger is a relative trigger (requires a 100% lead of UM over forts), the higher trigger I'm talking about is an absolute trigger. So once you reached Nx100% merits total UMed, it then becomes the same as your proposed "race" system. It just means a casual 100% UM while the fortifying power is napping and forgets to fortify won't make the system turmoil.

Anyway I kind of like the idea of the "double trigger", it gives a sense of progression, basically the attacker would need an extra effort required to actually try and shake off that system, I think the sweet spot might be +100% to undermine a system and +150% (or +200%if you want more stability) to turmoil it. But yeah as you said loss system would basically stay so I'm not pretty sure it would be the best way to do things.

Was thinking about that too, it would be interesting to actually have some kind of "invasion" mechanic, like another percentual trigger to make it possible for a Power to "take" an enemy system. For example, let's say a Power goes +300% against another one with their merits alone, a conflict exclusive for players from the two contestants could fire up during the cycle for domination, if the Power confirms the +300% undermining then they directly conquer the system the next cycle. It would be something very difficult to achieve (+300%) and a viable alternative to other tactics.

EDIT

Wait: +300% for having a conflict where the attacking Power will have the opportunity after that cycle to directly try to conquer the very same system with its rightful triggers, not becoming the one controlling immediately.

That's interesting - again this seems like a mechanic to accelerate territorial migration, which again I'm unsure about how fast it should move. Basically if I take a 2 year haitus from powerplay, I'd expect things to change a lot. But after a 2 month haitus it might be weird if the entire map is redrawn when I get back. Thinking again, given it takes extra effort, perhaps your 300% control-swap idea just adds extra flexibility.

I think it's very hard to guess the final impact of these sorts of changes because of feedbacks and counterability. Although I was joking before, it might actually be a good thing to create a "board game" model of powerplay. Basically give every power (start with just two sides maybe) a set amount of merits per month (perhaps with some RNG noise to simulate player free time variation etc.) and let them spend them on UM/fort daily (capped per day), reacting to their opponent's moves the day before. And see how quickly the map changes. You could freeze the BGS, or maybe allow players to flip triggers up or down in one control bubble per week, say. Oh wait - you say get rid of BGS effect on triggers XD. Anyway, you see what I mean (and you could test the BGS changes you're proposing).

 

[Bashy81]

What I'm really looking for anyway is a dial for the developer to control the speed at which territory can change hands.

Same here, with a few other objectives.

Shoot your ideas now.

o7

This is meant as an augmentation to the OP, and by all means feel free to pick out any good bits if you dont like the whole.


- 1) You can only expand to systems that extend your continuous territory. And there are consequences for being cut-off.


My idea is connected territory. It allows for a far more attack-biased system like in the OP (which is definitely needed given Powerplay stalemate) & It works quite well with a system that removes Overheads, because it allows for er, reintroducing overheads..

In this idea, the shape of territory matters more. It represents a sense of logistics routes & efficient transport of resources.


If you have a continuous territory that can trace a continuous path through it's control bubbles back to it's HQ then it is efficient, and has no overheads incurred for isolated systems .

The larger the number of control systems / larger the economic income a Power has, the wider these efficiency highways need to be to avoid overheads.

You can remove territory from a distant Power, but you cant take that territory for yourself without a territorial route connecting it to your Capital.

- 2) A Decadence & Decay mechanic, that creates Overheads for Powers that are too compact. These Overheads increase over time for so long as that Power doesn't stretch-out significantly enough. *

This represents what happens to all factions & civilizations that surround themselves with like-thinking people. They start to believe their own propaganda that they are wonderful & Right, stop challenging their own ideas and become inefficient, decadent and begin a descent into decay & collapse. I.. dont need to colour-in a comparison with the Forums here.


TLR

My suggestion means the min-max strategic defence would be punished economically, exponentially, and the min-max strategic attack would be vulnerable to counterattack & economic collapse. And it would all be visible on Galmap & Power menus, meaning intuitive solutions would hopefully compare reasonably well against spreadsheet-analysed optimals.

You would have a balance that means the shape of a Power would differ according to the nature of each Power, & their available systems, but essentially be tending towards looking like some kind of octopus/squid for aggressive Powers, and an american-football for defensive ones. Utopia may end up going pear-shaped. Again.

I did want a controlled way to shed your own systems intentionally, instead of having to rely on the largesse of your enemies to undermine them for you. (because that creates a starting-point for 5C pledging) However, if that granular level of control was enabled, what would actually happen is likely to be every power ditching every other strategic consideration and instead rushing to create the First Great Galactic Phallus. And then their enemies would strive to carry out the First Galactic Circumcision, followed by the First Titanic Castration and so on until its all a sticky mess & grudges take over from mischief & we can start some proper strategy. But by then the revamped Powerplay would've lost all credibility, and ever-after would always risk descending into a farcical cockfight.

The nature, and progress of a Power and a conflict between Powers would all be visible on Galmap. A glance would tell you a lot. That easy-access to strategy, even if involving complicated mechanics, is more important IMO than the specific mechanics ive outlined, themselves.

Other than providing a natural slowing of pace (to moderate the more dynamic attacking possibilities) & providing chokepoints for invasions, it serves to both decentralise strategy as is the OP intention, (by making strategy far more visible and accessible in-game) as well as providing easy-access to what is going on for outsiders. Id love for streamers to be able to do simple & yet meaningful Powerplay reports having Galmap as a primary tool. It would be extra-awesome if it didn't end up looking like geeks pointing at 3D space willies.

If an aggressor began to look like a spider (ahem) it would be bad & precarious for them. If a defender's territory started looking more like a helix or a freaky balloon animal, theyd already know how much trouble they were in. In either situation, the Power would be very close to having large swathes of territory cut-off and their economy wrecked by the Overheads impact.

* These D&D (I think that abbreviation might already be taken.. "Decay & Inefficiency" perhaps?) Overheads would be additive to any other Overheads for having cut-off systems. The D&D/D&I Overheads would be ratio-based, so you always need a proportion of systems based further out from your Capital than would be defensively ideal, and the larger the Power is, the larger the number of systems they need at those further radii from HQ. The worst combination would be a core sphere that looks like a (..proper..) football on galmap, with a small number of isolated far-flung territories. The combined overheads would overwhelm your income, making even the most defensible systems hard to hold. You couldn't just sit as a defensible ball & counter the escalating D&D/D&I Overheads by throwing out weaponised expansion snakes occasionally, that you have no intention to keep long-term. These would not be of a sufficient number of systems to counter the ratio of close-in systems, and they would be highly vulnerable to being cut-off leading to even more Overheads issues.


If this all sounds a bit hippy-trippy, particularly the snakes, pear-shaped starfish balloon-animals, & the giant space obscenities, I ofc offer absolutely no apologies. However it does need more er, 'fleshing-out' & I have a variety of 5C concerns for it as well, so if anyone's read this far and finds it intriguing but flawed, please do voice your concerns & amendments (no innuendos required) & point out the blind-spots. o7