Powerplay If New Powers Were Designed?

[Sixteen-String Jack]

My first preference would be for a revised system where new Powers emerged organically from a revised interaction between Powerplay and the BGS. I wasn't impressed by the Dangerous Games, while it does involve players it hasn't any real relation to the minor factions represented, even to the extent that it was very difficult to allocate territory to the winning Power.

However, if new Powers were to be designed to fill roles which were perceived to be missing in the current game, what types should be considered?

Nine Powers would make twenty, a round figure. How about-

1. Alliance non-corporate, for balance and lore purposes
2. a third Federation power, leaning to corporate
3. a communist and cooperative power
4. a criminal non-pirate corporate power
5. a theocracy, possibly anti-technology
6. radical revolutionaries
7. a feudal oligarchy, like preindustrial Europe rather than ancient Europe
8. pro-alien cultists, to fill the demand
9. a transhuman power, whether robot or organic or both

Any better choices, or substantial objections to any of these? Would the introduction of so many new powers pose a threat to the integrity of the system?

Also, has the addition of Grom been a success, given that Grom has never been threatened by turmoil? And is Powerplay flexible enough to adjust to other minor changes, like a CC change where you get +1 CC for a favourable system and -1 for unfavourable, or +1ly radius for a large control system, -1 for a small one and -2ly for an outpost only system?

 

[withnail]

They would probably land them in some PMF's space and then months of snide undermining would happen because said PMF has taken offense at it.

 

[Martin Schou]

And is Powerplay flexible enough to adjust to other minor changes, like a CC change where you get +1 CC for a favourable system and -1 for unfavourable, or +1ly radius for a large control system, -1 for a small one and -2ly for an outpost only system?

Define favourable/unfavourable system.

Define large and small control system.

 

[Sitoutumaton]

I would like a more dynamic Powerplay as well, but I foresee problems with that system if it was combined with pre-existing powers.

Currently we have the eleven powers with portraits, bunch of fluff stuff written down and design work done under the hood. This all is work put into powers that originally were envisioned to be capable of destruction and replacement. Not to mention, some of these figures are very influential outside Powerplay. What would it mean for rest of the narrative if Her Imperial Majesty's Lavigny-Duval's or Federal president Hudson's powers turmoiled out of existence? Very awkward things. In hindsight having them in Powerplay was bad decision for dynamic mechanics.

The new system should do away with superpower figures to preserve their status, and replace them with more expendable figureheads lower in the hierarchy. Not everyone, mind you. People like Archon Delaine or Pranav Antal or Yuri Grom are not as permanent fixtures in the galactic landscape as immovable objects like superpower statespeople.

In addition if a system of powers failing and ascending to actual reality, there should be a pool of ready assets for aspiring ascendant powers to use for their portrayal. Holo-Me with non-pilot accessories and appearances, and a tool for generating symbols out of pre-set assets for absolute automation, or using those as base for later touch-up.

Your proposed options are mostly fine with me Jack. The minor objection I have is that these all are designed and handed down like the current 11 powers were, and if collapse was implemented, thus are expendable in face of insufficient support. Now if there was a system implemented which allowed a sufficiently large group of players create an aspirant power and then stake a claim for power status with it, I'd welcome that better.

P.S. I had forgotten about the PP modules and boni. Those are items in definite need of intelligent designing behind them. Additionally, what will happen to modules whose granting powers are extinct? This class of haves and have-nots should not exist.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

The favourable and unfavourable systems would be as currently defined by the effect on fortification triggers. A large system could be 1 billion plus, a medium system in the millions, a small system less than 1 million.

The need for a designed bonus structure and Powerplay special item for each Power is a major block on the emergence of new Powers via the BGS. One method around this might be to link each item to a system rather than directly to the Power, so if the required system is under the control of your Power you get access to the special module. Then new Powerplay items can be designed independently of the emergence of new Powers- and not every Power would have to have one.

As each minor faction has to have an identity as a government type you could have a few options for a bonus structure for each type, to be chosen on emergence.

The bgs and Powerplay relationship would be much simpler if Powers controlled minor factions directly, rather than as part of control spheres. Then a minor faction would emerge as a Power once it was large enough, and could begin to control other minor factions.

I agree that if the leaders of the superpowers are to be vulnerable to a collapse mechanic the consequences should be clear, though perhaps it was envisaged that the leadership would change to another faction in this case- however the Alliance would then seem to need two Powers?

However the question must be whether Powerplay could cope with these sorts of changes, under the current rules it would be very difficult for a Power to transition from control based on 15ly spheres to one where the spheres vary, let alone to direct control of minor factions by their home systems. Also, while the first new Power to be introduced had to be given a chance to succeed, Grom has never turmoiled and the current rules seem to allow much smaller Powers invulnerability to collapse, which is counter-intuitive?

 

[Mangal Oemie]

... I wasn't impressed by the Dangerous Games, while it does involve players it hasn't any real relation to the minor factions represented, even to the extent that it was very difficult to allocate territory to the winning Power.
....

Don't get me started, even. When emerging powers are forced to compete by doing the action of a small criminal minor faction that usefully is at the bottom in any system, rather than the sort of multi-system factions that were selected, someone screwed up even before the power was selected and declared winner.

smuggle and pirate your way to Power, that makes total sense.

Please, no deeper integration between PP and BGS, though. It's already the source of lots of unnecessary conflict, and don't force one on the other.

 

[krylite]

I would be for new powers added to the lineup, perhaps double the number. Where I'd rather have FDev decide what new powers are made. I think Grom hasn't been turmoiled more due to the forced ZYADA agreement between player factions in the discords leaving Grom alone as a friendly to the imperials even though there were many ignored independent pledgers in the imperial powers who could care less.

I would favor a tweak to the upkeep formula to allow a larger reach of systems from their headquarters. Perhaps a bonus among a power's pleged base for a power in the top 10, top 5 , top 3 etc. of the ranked lineup. Otherwise I'm fine with the current PP system where it's not too EVE-like. Interestingly the biggest change to powerplay in a long time is perhaps coming now with whatever FDev is going to decide with the new PFB applied to PP in 2.4..

 

[Henri]

we need the bubble to be smaller

 

[Rubbernuke]

Actually put in collapse first.

 

[damon8r351]

I endorse a new Alliance power, just because Edmund Mahon is getting a little too big for his britches. Maybe a member of the Council of Admirals.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

While I agree collapse needs to exist, the proposed mechanic is awful. It should be applied to Powers which have inescapable turmoil or which are incapable of controlling sufficient territory, rather than to the 'last place' Power.

If the Powers controlled minor factions directly this would have the effect of shrinking the bubble, it also produces less unnecessary conflicts and minor factions could have the opportunity of freeing themselves from unwanted control without the introduction of yet a further 'freedom fighter' element.

While the Dangerous Games deserves criticism for the dubious gameplay, extensive developer interference and lack of any connection to player activity in the galaxy, it managed to ensure that the emergent Power would have sufficient support- though as it happened at least two new Powers would have had sufficient support and one of them wasn't implemented. If Powers are to emerge organically there might have to be some method of ensuring that they have enough commanders backing them and not just a high place on a bgs leaderboard that makes no distinction between huge systems and tiny ones.

 

[Vasious]

Mechanics & space etc aside

I would like to see the Third Political Party in the Federation, the Libertarians
And other Alliance Power, be it the Council of Admirals or another Party within the Alliance Assembly

 

[Rubbernuke]

While I agree collapse needs to exist, the proposed mechanic is awful. It should be applied to Powers which have inescapable turmoil or which are incapable of controlling sufficient territory, rather than to the 'last place' Power.

If the Powers controlled minor factions directly this would have the effect of shrinking the bubble, it also produces less unnecessary conflicts and minor factions could have the opportunity of freeing themselves from unwanted control without the introduction of yet a further 'freedom fighter' element.

While the Dangerous Games deserves criticism for the dubious gameplay, extensive developer interference and lack of any connection to player activity in the galaxy, it managed to ensure that the emergent Power would have sufficient support- though as it happened at least two new Powers would have had sufficient support and one of them wasn't implemented. If Powers are to emerge organically there might have to be some method of ensuring that they have enough commanders backing them and not just a high place on a bgs leaderboard that makes no distinction between huge systems and tiny ones.

As Sandro described it, turmoil is a power in the bottom 3 that has had several consecutive turmoil's.

I think everyone would be happy to get this in simply as it means Powerplay has an endgame and is not a Möbius strip with no end: without turmoil in any form attacks are pointless.

 

[Sitoutumaton]

It was promised, but has not been implemented. Guess the developers realized what a waste of assets it'll be to write off all the work gone into dressing current powers.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Are you saying that right now there's no way for a power to die?

No, currently there is no way for a Power to 'die' and be removed.

Hopefully if FD visit PP again this will be a priority.

 

[Goose4291]

Are you saying that right now there's no way for a power to die?

Nope. The worst bit was they didn't tell us they hadnt enabled the feature and we spent forever trying to crush a certain power

*Cough* Pegasi war *cough*

 

[Ben Ryder]

My first preference would be for a revised system where new Powers emerged organically from a revised interaction between Powerplay and the BGS. I wasn't impressed by the Dangerous Games, while it does involve players it hasn't any real relation to the minor factions represented, even to the extent that it was very difficult to allocate territory to the winning Power.

However, if new Powers were to be designed to fill roles which were perceived to be missing in the current game, what types should be considered?

Nine Powers would make twenty, a round figure. How about-

1. Alliance non-corporate, for balance and lore purposes
2. a third Federation power, leaning to corporate
3. a communist and cooperative power
4. a criminal non-pirate corporate power
5. a theocracy, possibly anti-technology
6. radical revolutionaries
7. a feudal oligarchy, like preindustrial Europe rather than ancient Europe
8. pro-alien cultists, to fill the demand
9. a transhuman power, whether robot or organic or both

Any better choices, or substantial objections to any of these? Would the introduction of so many new powers pose a threat to the integrity of the system?

Also, has the addition of Grom been a success, given that Grom has never been threatened by turmoil? And is Powerplay flexible enough to adjust to other minor changes, like a CC change where you get +1 CC for a favourable system and -1 for unfavourable, or +1ly radius for a large control system, -1 for a small one and -2ly for an outpost only system?

I think the key thing is that people tend to say x power = x super power

And from reading the power descriptions none of them do. They are personalities interested in personal influence not the party line. They might dress it up as the party line but essential Hudson is Hudson not the Federation and so on for all of them.

With that in mind no mattyer how loyal you are to a super power please try and see where Im coming from


1. Alliance non-corporate, for balance and lore purposes = no. They would just be a stero type and no an indiviual seeking to exert their perosnal influen
2. a third Federation power, leaning to corporate = They already do. Check the decriptions. Fed Powers are about teh money. Dont go mad chaps. Read the decriptions
3. a communist and cooperative power = We already have 2/3. Grom, Aisling and Antal
4. a criminal non-pirate corporate power = We already have one. Archon has zero to do with Piracy. They slave trade. Read the description
5. a theocracy, possibly anti-technology = Hell yes! But how, will the fly in a space ship called bad dream?
6. radical revolutionaries = See Antal. Their expansions are even called Violent Protests
7. a feudal oligarchy, like preindustrial Europe rather than ancient Europe = You seen Patraues and most of the Empire?
8. pro-alien cultists, to fill the demand = Love it!
9. a transhuman power, whether robot or organic or both = See Antal

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

7. a feudal oligarchy, like preindustrial Europe rather than ancient Europe = You seen Patraues and most of the Empire?

Technically, Imperially-aligned feudal factions are considered to be 'Neo-Feudalist', which means:

A faction that actively engages in activity to ensure that Imperial Corporations are ceded more control over the day to day running of Imperial Worlds

Presumably, rather than being a land-holding aristocrat directly governing the system, the land-holding aristocrats empower minor Imperial Corporations to administer and oversee the system directly, while they take credit and responsibility of the smooth running of the system in reports to the Imperial Senate.

I think the confusion most people are feeling in regards to the Empire is the concept of what patronage is. Clearly the reference to 'preindustrial europe instead of ancient europe' implies that the only example of patronage comes from the Roman Empire, and so that must be what FDev means. While there is a structure to Imperial patronage networks (Senator > Patron > Clients > Citizens), it's worth noting that both 'Investor' and 'Lobbyist' also fit under the patronage government type. With that reading, we've got numerous examples of patronage governments in the modern day, but we simply call them all corruption. While everyone knows that day to day employment opportunities, social mobility, and political networking relies more on 'who you know' than 'what you can do', the myth of a meritocracy still rises to the top. All patronage means is that it is honest about the social networking that builds the backbone of political intrigue, while relying more upon references than supposedly unbiased tests of worth for personal credentials.

Is it an ideal world? Not likely. If any of the government types appear to be ideal, it's most likely that we're reading them incorrectly. My personal choice for 'where to live in Elite' would probably be a Co-Operative government, but that's probably because no GalNet article has pointed out the horrible black pit of morality that exists in those systems. At least with a patronage network you know where you stand, and there is always room for social mobility, the pathways that promote merit are likely simply more limited (i.e. Navy).

 

[Ian Doncaster]

My personal choice for 'where to live in Elite' would probably be a Co-Operative government, but that's probably because no GalNet article has pointed out the horrible black pit of morality that exists in those systems.

"Morally ambiguous" is probably about the best any coherent system of state governance is ever going to manage. The Co-operatives are certainly in that region.

 

[Sitoutumaton]

Technically, Imperially-aligned feudal factions are considered to be 'Neo-Feudalist', which means:

Presumably, rather than being a land-holding aristocrat directly governing the system, the land-holding aristocrats empower minor Imperial Corporations to administer and oversee the system directly, while they take credit and responsibility of the smooth running of the system in reports to the Imperial Senate.

Pretty much this, albeit I've interpreted it as being patron-level upper strata shamelessly buying up estates and organizations, and selling them right off to corporations for kickbacks. I'd reckon senators involved in this would find themselves quickly losing representatives if they didn't have sufficient media spin machine to tidy up the appearances.

I think the confusion most people are feeling in regards to the Empire is the concept of what patronage is. Clearly the reference to 'preindustrial europe instead of ancient europe' implies that the only example of patronage comes from the Roman Empire, and so that must be what FDev means. While there is a structure to Imperial patronage networks (Senator > Patron > Clients > Citizens), it's worth noting that both 'Investor' and 'Lobbyist' also fit under the patronage government type. With that reading, we've got numerous examples of patronage governments in the modern day, but we simply call them all corruption. While everyone knows that day to day employment opportunities, social mobility, and political networking relies more on 'who you know' than 'what you can do', the myth of a meritocracy still rises to the top. All patronage means is that it is honest about the social networking that builds the backbone of political intrigue, while relying more upon references than supposedly unbiased tests of worth for personal credentials.

I'm endorsing this interpretation. All flavours of patronages indicate that there is an informal, mostly unwritten code of conduct that relies of social interactions, and resources flow via these from the top to bottom. Compare to other factions that have codify their interactions and restrict perceived harmful forms of it.

This also makes patronages and feudals somewhat difficult to set apart, since both's basis of power relies on influential heads owning a lot of estate and resources, and unconventional leverage of those towards lower social classes.

My personal choice for 'where to live in Elite' would probably be a Co-Operative government, but that's probably because no GalNet article has pointed out the horrible black pit of morality that exists in those systems.

Co-ops seem like the closest things we have to anarcho-socialists in the game I think. Sharing is emphasized to absurd amounts, but there is no monolithic state as in communism. Some excerpts of Cooperative station dialogue in various states:

Active Boom: "The system's economy is strong, and when economy is strong we all share the benefit."
Active Civil Unrest: "Some people refuse to share what they have, so we're suffering from civil unrest."
Active Expansion: "We are looking to expand and hope to bring our cooperative community to another star system."
Pending Boom: "Our philosophy of sharing all seems to be working in our favour. We will have soon more to share!"