Good informative original post - Many thanks Justinian. Shame the advert for PowerPlay degraded so quickly in the replies below it..... Not really the intention of the OP I imagine....
Be good if a Moderator could just take the first post and make it a sticky.
Well considering that you can simply make them landable by friends and squadron members... problem is that you can store powerplay commodities...I suggested in feedback that there should be an option to order a Fleet Carrier to attack enemy commanders who attempt to dock at it.
CMDR Justinian Octavius
Well considering that you can simply make them landable by friends and squadron members... problem is that you can store powerplay commodities...
Until a Power is completely parasited by 5C, weaponised expansions are among the best defences against it.Well I don't know if FDev is looking here, but since we all know that 5C is a pain in the back for everyone and the proposals Sandro made centuries ago are probably going to stay in the drawer of "good ideas that we didn't have time or resources to implement", there's a simple change that the devs may do and I think would mitigate the abominable use of zombie powers to throw "weaponized" expansions: remove contested CC. That is, we go back to a first come, first served system: the one who gets the bubble first, keeps it. If someone expands in a system that "contests" it, it will just provide CC for the "free" systems and not affect those who are already under control.
The only problem would be to take a decision for those bubbles that are currently overlapping, but I'm pretty sure that FDev can track when the expansions took place.
Until a Power is completely parasited by 5C, weaponised expansions are among the best defences against it.
Ok now I understand what you were meaning, it would make 5C a more appealing tactic. Fair point. But we are back at the dev desk: to solve the 5C and other problems that afflict PP it would be necessary to improve the Powers' ability to get rid of bad system, and to have good offensive mechanisms, like targeting an enemy CS with an ensuing battle for control. A kind of Powers-piloted Community Goals. All of this would require a redesign of the PP mechanics plus creating an in-game interface to carry out these actions. Which is something that currently FDev cannot or doesn't want to do, apparently. My idea here was exactly to change just how CC are calculated, which would require a minimum effort from devs.Part of the rise of 5C is the weakness of conventional attacks versus defence, and removing weaponised expansions would weaken attacking potential and only serve to incentivise 5C further as the primary means to ruin a power.
If you lose control of >25% of your votes to randoms & 5C, so cant fully consolidate to prevent 5C preps, ideally there would be a profitable prep you can go for. This isnt very likely however, so instead you have to put an unwanted prep above the 5C preps. If it is a weaponised expansion then its more likely it will be effectively opposed, and if it does go through then your opponent(s) are negatively affected as well as your own power.How? If a Power is struggling to preserve CC, it cannot afford weaponised expansion. That's the reason why Grom and Torval are used to throw weaponised expansions, because they have nothing to lose. I cannot see how weaponised expansions could protect a power from 5C.