Powerplay If New Powers Were Designed?

[Ian Phillips]

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

The original introduction of Powers (Powerplay) proposed 20 powers. 10 were put directly into the game and another 1 has arisen from player factions. There is still room for 9 more powers before it gets too crowded and some need to be relegated.

 

[Rob At Work]

Put the other 9 in Colonia

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

It is good to know that there is still UI room for nine more powers- though there might not be space available in the galaxy! Unless the current mechanics change Powers would seem to need to deprive another existing Power of a control sphere to gain one, the same would be true for any new Power?

My suggestions aimed more to represent the existing variety of minor factions than the superpowers, if the only Alliance Power is a corporate power other Alliance factions have no one to support. I suppose that with twenty Powers the portfolios of the existing ones could also be reduced to make them more consistent?

1. Every single Alliance individual has to support corporations or they are a stereotype?
2. Yeah any further Federation Power should be leaning to non-corporate rather than corporate as Winters isn't liberal really, though I noticed that none of the Powers can favour democracy so this might not be possible, how about Federation-cooperative though?
3. The objection is that communist-pacifist powers already exist. Powerplay has created dictatorship-feudal-communist Powers though they seem very unlikely, the wars between feudal and dictatorship and communist and dictatorship powers were some of the most destructive in history. Grom isn't pacifist and Aisling is imperial.
4. Archon Delaine the self-styled 'Pirate King' isn't a pirate????? Maybe Li Yong-Rui is too close though. However, criminal empires are quicker to appear and disappear, there could be more of them?
6. Antal can hardly be both pacifist and violent revolutionary? Also, a Power than supports feudal and dictatorship governments isn't really radical? This is the same issue with dictatorship-feudal-communist combinations repeated with cooperative added to make the mix more unlikely.
7. A feudal oligarchy of the middle ages would only recognise and value military prowess, also slaves weren't traded, peasants or serfs were forced to remain on the land. The leaders were Barons not Senators, they didn't themselves appear in a representative body. Patronage governments where status was more varied and specialised might be more ancient or Renaissance forms. I've always objected to all feudal regimes having Imperial slavery when this is only legitimate within the Empire.
9. Is Antal robot-oriented though? Utopia is about altering peoples perception, rather than altering people themselves?

Another problem with the current mechanics is that even if you consider some of these suggestions to be duplicates, existing Powers cannot reach to cover all of the original human bubble, so that Antal might need to be complemented by another Power on the opposite side. Better mechanics might be preferable to more Powers, though we could have both?

 

[Arkadi]

If new powers were designed...

... hopefully they would be powers that would allow for group-coordinaton and communication with ingame-community tools!

I'd like to see some independent powers split up or band togehter (Alliance and AEDC could split into two powers of one "superpower" or/and Grom's Highness could be integrated into the Empire ... )

Also aliens as powers!

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

My understanding of Pranav Antal, the SimGuru, is that he inherited his power from his father's visionary legacy. The idea is that they are transhumans of a sort, who spend a majority of their lives in the sims, and get there via re-education programs. They also ban all mind altering substances, slavery, and things like progenitor cells.

There was a quote from Braben which essentially mentioned one of the Powers was relatively comparable to the Jong Il dynasty of North Korea. It took me awhile to realize he meant Antal. So, yes, he's a pacifist for the definition of pacifist who puts down violent protests when he expands his influence and carts off dissidents for re-education.

But apparently they like tea, so it's all good.

 

[mp4x]

I'd like to too see infiltration/espionage, a game mechanic that allows you to be working for one faction/power, appear to join another and work against that faction from within. Adding distrust and high-jinks. It would have to work so that if a CMDR identified that someone on their faction was an infiltrator, that CMDR could 'out' them, with with relative risk/reward consequences for both parties. So that being found out to be a spy would be a fine and two steps backwards within their own faction, for that CMDR, for failure and if you try and 'out' a CMDR in your own faction, who isn't actually a spy, that CMDR would suffer consequences within their own faction for attempting to tarnish an innocent comrades reputation, possibly even give financial compensation. The longer you manage to be an active spy, the greater the reward to the one that finds you, and the greater reward for your espionage actions(completed spy missions.) Almost forcing a little bit of role play.

I'd like to see a religious fanatic faction/group, similar to the "Righteous Fire" add-on for Wing Commander: Privateer, though I appreciate that would be harder to do in today's climate. Maybe tie into the Thargoids, a group of zealots who believe Thargoids to be our saviors or something. They could work with the Thargoids, maybe even offer themselves to be hosts for something mind-controlly. Those players would be able to fight in all Human/Thargoid interactions (CZ's, random actions, large war areas, whatever) on the Thargoid side in modified Thargoid/human ships with a different set of benefits and difficulties. You'd still be a human just altered(borg?) Your ships would still be yours just altered. The decision to "go Thargoid" would be permanent, you would have to delete that savegame and start again to be on the human side again.

 

[Martin Schou]

It is good to know that there is still UI room for nine more powers- though there might not be space available in the galaxy! Unless the current mechanics change Powers would seem to need to deprive another existing Power of a control sphere to gain one, the same would be true for any new Power?

My suggestions aimed more to represent the existing variety of minor factions than the superpowers, if the only Alliance Power is a corporate power other Alliance factions have no one to support. I suppose that with twenty Powers the portfolios of the existing ones could also be reduced to make them more consistent?

1. Every single Alliance individual has to support corporations or they are a stereotype?
2. Yeah any further Federation Power should be leaning to non-corporate rather than corporate as Winters isn't liberal really, though I noticed that none of the Powers can favour democracy so this might not be possible, how about Federation-cooperative though?
3. The objection is that communist-pacifist powers already exist. Powerplay has created dictatorship-feudal-communist Powers though they seem very unlikely, the wars between feudal and dictatorship and communist and dictatorship powers were some of the most destructive in history. Grom isn't pacifist and Aisling is imperial.
4. Archon Delaine the self-styled 'Pirate King' isn't a pirate????? Maybe Li Yong-Rui is too close though. However, criminal empires are quicker to appear and disappear, there could be more of them?
6. Antal can hardly be both pacifist and violent revolutionary? Also, a Power than supports feudal and dictatorship governments isn't really radical? This is the same issue with dictatorship-feudal-communist combinations repeated with cooperative added to make the mix more unlikely.
7. A feudal oligarchy of the middle ages would only recognise and value military prowess, also slaves weren't traded, peasants or serfs were forced to remain on the land. The leaders were Barons not Senators, they didn't themselves appear in a representative body. Patronage governments where status was more varied and specialised might be more ancient or Renaissance forms. I've always objected to all feudal regimes having Imperial slavery when this is only legitimate within the Empire.
9. Is Antal robot-oriented though? Utopia is about altering peoples perception, rather than altering people themselves?

Another problem with the current mechanics is that even if you consider some of these suggestions to be duplicates, existing Powers cannot reach to cover all of the original human bubble, so that Antal might need to be complemented by another Power on the opposite side. Better mechanics might be preferable to more Powers, though we could have both?

The Alliance is ~1/10th the size of the Federation, yet the Federation only has two powers. Should the Federation be 10 powers instead?

The Federation allows six government types, but only one of the Federation powers is even strong against them (Winters, Corporate), while the President of the Federation (Hudson) requires his supporters to support non-Federation factions (Feudal and Patronage). Should we add five more Federation powers, so those are represented as well?

The Empire is ~9 times the size of the Alliance, but only has four powers. Should they have 9 instead?

The Empire allows six government types, but only three are supported by the powers (ALD, Patreus and Torval) while Aisling's supporters have no Empire factions to support. Should we add another three Empire powers, so all government types are represented?

The Alliance allows 10 faction types (everything but Prison Colony) - should we give the Alliance 10 powers? Would that mean 100 Federation powers and 90 Empire powers to maintain the size difference between the super powers? Or should we simply massively dilute the already fairly small pool of Alliance supporters in PowerPlay and stick with 10 powers for the Alliance?

The way PowerPlay works in its current incarnation wouldn't do well with more powers. Grom seems to have a large player base, but since they were added so late in the game, they're stuck with a small number of systems, which in turn results in them being far down the list. Adding more powers just for the sake of adding them will do nothing to improve things - if anything it'll make things worse. Look at Li Yong-Rui as an example. EVERYBODY leeches off of Li Yong-Rui to get the 15% discount off of ships and equipment, yet almost no one can be to do anything in return. Even when they're pledged to get the Pack Hounds people are too self absorbed to be bothered to help maintain the biggest cash savings in the game.

I like the Sirius guys, but if collapse is ever introduced into PowerPlay, I hope Li Yong-Rui collapses almost immediately, just so I can feast on the salty tears of the people who constantly whine about how PowerPlay does nothing useful for the game whining about the loss of discounts.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

Thanks for the comments, while there have been a number of speculative threads posted, there isn't enough serious discussion about the future of Powerplay between commanders who have the experience of leading Powers over the last two years.

It seems reasonable to point out that either each superpower government type has a Powerplay option or they do not. The easiest solution would seem to be to have every Federation government favourable to Federation Powers, every Empire government favourable to Empire powers and every Alliance government favourable to Alliance powers? Should a favourable superpower alignment make an unfavourable government favourable or neutral?

This would still leave a pro-Alliance faction without any choice of Powers at all, even without unnecessary conflicts. It is notable that if player power were to decide the emergence of powers you might get another corporate Alliance Power, though led by a woman?

I'm not a supporter of Powerplay being based on a list, I'd prefer concrete objectives based on the map. Grom might not be able to progress up the list however if Powerplay is to be based on who collapsed as an endgame, they would be considered fairly strong until they first experienced turmoil?

While you have extensive experience of Powerplay I have to doubt your comments about Li Yong-Rui, to an extent. Sirius commonly have 500 cc spare and 75% consolidation, and fortify extensively. Also, the Sirius triggers don't reflect a struggling power, they have to have been the product of considerable bgs effort. If the core Sirius guys have already done what is necessary to survive how much more can randoms contribute?

It is difficult to suggest any improvements that won't affect Mahon detrimentally when Mahon has a 1000 CC balance and no objectives other than to sit at the top of a Power ranking list. This is my objection to collapse as an endgame, that it encourages stasis. I'm not sure what you mean by adding powers making things worse, is it in terms of making the game less predictable and the collapse of a power more likely? That would be the aim though...? If we have a design that allows Powers to emerge without taking developer time this makes collapse more viable?

The current mechanics of Powerplay do not even seem to reward aggression as a response to there being no available expansions. My appreciation of it is that you could undermine and turmoil a Power, so that might free up regions for expansion, however your efforts make expansions available for every Power. If you attempt to pre-expand by contesting systems, it is unlikely that the contested systems will turmoil, leaving the attacking Power even less likely to be rewarded. You are left with a fifth column game- obviously this makes Li Yong-Rui more vulnerable because of the desirable discounts and weapon.

So my analysis would not be that the idle randoms do nothing to help Li, it is more that Li attracts the fifth columns and the Powerplay mechanics make fifth column activity the only successful method of reducing huge CC balances, even then it requires long-term activity to break consolidation locks.

Is the retributor then Mahon's secret Powerplay superweapon? Is another Alliance faction opposed because it might bring a decent weapon- and the feared fifth column?

 

[Rubbernuke]

My understanding of Pranav Antal, the SimGuru, is that he inherited his power from his father's visionary legacy. The idea is that they are transhumans of a sort, who spend a majority of their lives in the sims, and get there via re-education programs. They also ban all mind altering substances, slavery, and things like progenitor cells.

There was a quote from Braben which essentially mentioned one of the Powers was relatively comparable to the Jong Il dynasty of North Korea. It took me awhile to realize he meant Antal. So, yes, he's a pacifist for the definition of pacifist who puts down violent protests when he expands his influence and carts off dissidents for re-education.

But apparently they like tea, so it's all good.

What I find annoying is that FD, DBOBE etc give out these snippets that suggest that more lore exists than what is in game- why not give us more? Writing 1000 words of lore on each character, dropping it into beacons etc would take hardly any time at all.

You are also correct with Pranav Antal- his Utopia is like a monastery where you break the rules at your peril. So in a way he is a dictator and a co-operative rolled into one.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This is my objection to collapse as an endgame, that it encourages stasis.

I disagree: if collapse was in it would spur a lot more attacks as they would mean something. Right now we have stasis as powers are just doing the motions.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

That Utopians spend time in sims doesn't make them transhuman, transhumans don't have human bodies, whether they have inorganic or non-human ones. Players who represent themselves as female commanders, or who fail to wear clothing on the lower half of their body, do not become transvestites!

Is the suggestion that North Korea is to an extent a pacifist community???

It is possible that stasis is due to the absence of collapse rather than the consequence of collapse as an endgame, however it is also the only deferred endgame at present, there have been no other options put forward. A different option as an endgame might result in activity even if deferred?

The bgs activity of the Powers can only partly be explained in terms of current rules, aren't the Powers preparing for new mechanics even if no one knows what they will be? Or is it the usual redundancy where if the gameplay is poor enough the players have time to build in more and more advantages which will then kill what little gameplay there is?

Before consolidation there was a counter to excessive CC reserves, however poor a stimulation it was Powers were forced to compete to spend their excess, or at least regulate their fortification closely. If to induce collapse you have to spend your CC reserve to attack a Power which could otherwise completely fortify, where is the reward for doing so when it makes you more vulnerable? Then Powers that merely continue to make the motions would succeed if collapse is introduced, yes?

 

[Rubbernuke]

The whole point of Powerplay was to be the power highest on the power leaderboard. The top 3 get extra perks, the bottom 3 in danger of elimination due to collapse.

No power was supposed to be permanent; any could die if it was attacked enough. As powers die others would come in, or powers that were eliminated come back in a different form.

Today, there is none of this going on. No power bar Mahon actually values the leaderboard positions at all, and without the threat of collapse the whole reason for Powers to exist is nullified. If you can't die, why should you care about expanding? After all the first rule of Powerplay is that you must expand. Now, if powers have given up on that central rule or simply use Powerplay as a shell for other activities, does that not suggest a total breakdown in the entire concept?

Making a power collapse (or escaping collapse) via fighting is Powerplays endgame pure and simple. It has no other reason to exist- its not for lore (how many Power leaders feature on Galnet? CGS? Not many). Its not for groups (since we have PMFs for that).

Consolidation was a sticking plaster to stop 5c ruining what was left of Powerplay, it was never intended to be 'in' as its killed Powerplay totally. Each power now consolidates to a point where its incredibly difficult to attack.

If collapse came in, powers would be forced out of apathy and actually think about expansion each cycle, and if there was no space fight other powers to make it by turmoilling others, while defending.

Ideally, consolidation should be a gamble rather than being the de facto stance each cycle. It should be either consolidate or expansion, but if you consolidate more than 3 times you risk collapse in the bottom 3.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

How about if Powerplay weapons did not disappear when their Power collapsed, instead whichever Power controlled the former home system of the collapsed Power got them? Then there would be an incentive for the top five powers to take space?

I can't agree that expand or collapse is a good mechanic, it creates false gameplay. If there were mechanics for new powers based on minor factions to emerge that might produce sufficient impetus to collapse?

Then there are the Thargoids, it is not yet clear if they will have an impact on Powerplay, if they destroy human systems then they will. While a human alien-supporting cult would be acceptable I hope they don't themselves become a Powerplay faction, it would be sad.

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

The whole point of Powerplay was to be the power highest on the power leaderboard. The top 3 get extra perks, the bottom 3 in danger of elimination due to collapse.

No power was supposed to be permanent; any could die if it was attacked enough. As powers die others would come in, or powers that were eliminated come back in a different form.

To be clear, 'collapse' did not ever mean death of the character. It was implied that that could be a possibility, but further discussions also implied that a collapsed Power should still exist with an HQ system and operate as some sort of 'resistance'.

There was a point where it looked like the concept of Power Play involved widespread BGS Factions (not just player group factions) being elevated to a Power, after it spread out to govern over a roughly 15Ly radius. We have enough of these now, that you could easily have a roster of 20-40 well-supported Factions all exist on the cusp of being a Power, but any new Power who failed to gain support or was systematically crushed would fail to expand beyond their HQ, and after a number of weeks would be replaced by another well-supported Faction. I don't know if that concept was ever mentioned by FDev, but I know of few of us PP organisers dreamed about it.

It would be organic, community driven, and be far more dynamic than it is now.

---

I believe the 'stagnation' of Power Play as we see it now was written in the stars at Cycle 7. Bail Out 1.0 removed the Overhead 'brick wall' that prevented any Power from expanding beyond 700 or 800 exploited systems. Now, when we hit that brick wall, every control system entered turmoil with no means of recovery. If that happened with our current expansion and turmoil rules? If you're going to hit the brick wall, and still have active expansions, only those that keep the Power above 0cc would succeed, the others would fail, no matter what. We would have quickly learned that the only way to expand would be to scrap the bad systems to claim more good ones, or just stagnate and enjoy our Power's influence at its 'max'.

The galaxy map would still be mostly empty and there would have been room for 10 new Powers to emerge, expand, collapse, and be replaced.

I don't think Consolidation has made Power Play stagnate. I believe that without a mechanical limiter to expansion, unending expansion became possible. FDev had no clue how quickly we would expand, and they were completely unprepared for it.

But at this point, we have 10 communities who have spent over 2 years ensuring our Powers are as expanded and entrenched as they are now. FDev doesn't want to just wipe that without having something really good ready to replace it. And I don't see FDev having the time to make something really good happen any time soon.

So, yeah, just like Conflict Zones are horrible 3 year old placeholders for a great potential idea, Power Play is now a 2 year old place holder for a great potential idea.

---

If FDev looks at Power Play as an evolution of expansive Factional influence on a galactic stage, it becomes something far different from what it is now. And this future version could focus far more on pitting CMDR vs CMDR for galactic standing, while the political influence shifts and manipulations would remain on the Factional level, not really interacting with the Power itself.

And if the Power becomes tied to or sprouts from a well-supported Faction? Well, then it should be that much work to allow those Powers to use their origin Faction to push mission style opportunities to pledged pilots, rather than CG-like grindfests that feel like a stopgap for players with too much time and credits on their hands.

There are at least two dozen Factions that have spread their governance to at least the majority of a single 'control sphere', and 11 of these could be tied to the existing Powers. That alone should be an interesting start.

---

And once again I've taken a totally unrelated thread and done yet another 'how to fix power play' rant into it.

Essentially, without Bail Out 1.0, Power Play would have had a type of stagnation around Cycle 7-10, but as we learned how to organise and re-structure, it could have become a very interesting strategic game of fighting over the 'best' spheres, rather than just gobbling up everything we could. And we'd still be fighting over the same spheres 2 years in, rather than waiting every 6 months for an FDev hotfix that would fix a bug introduced when they put out the last hotfix. And FDev's PP team (3 people?) could actually focus on improvements and expansions of the mechanics and Power capability, rather than treading water and mostly attempting to appease the existing niche community.

 

[Rubbernuke]

One major reason why there is no dynamism is because FD cannot automate Powerplay (and to an extent other parts of the game). Everything is done manually, so ideas that ask for faction > super faction > power progression will never happen smoothly.

The other real reason why Powerplay is in the state it is is that only half of the powers fight- most of the bubble now consists of areas 'off limits' due to treaties. Fighting, turmoil, shedding systems and collapse were supposed to be the bread and butter driving force- you had large powers with scrappy underdogs fighting to exist. If a power collapsed and was removed / demoted every couple of months it would add a great deal of uncertainty and *excitement* as then the communities would have something to lose.

So now we exist in a bubble thats 95% full, half won't fight to gain position, the main powers that *do* fight are stuck fighting over two systems for weeks on end, PMFs becoming potential weapons to screw up power bubbles, constant consolidation......its totally dysfunctional and FD need to actually make Powerplay a complete game to get it moving.

On topic:

I would like to see pirates based on moving supercarrier base ships and randomly jump about each turn like barbarians in Civ. You could fight between clans and be 'the Archon' each cycle.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I believe the 'stagnation' of Power Play as we see it now was written in the stars at Cycle 7. Bail Out 1.0 removed the Overhead 'brick wall' that prevented any Power from expanding beyond 700 or 800 exploited systems.

Yes - I think a lot of things happened at once there, and what was meant to be a "last resort" brake on an over-expansive power that would never be directly hit but would instead gradually make them much easier to oppose ended up being an inevitability.

1) We were told "20 powers, but starting with 10". If there were 20 powers from the start, probably most of them wouldn't have reached the ~800 exploited limit at all, or at least nowhere near as quickly. Though making 20 distinctive powers would have taken a lot of effort.

2) Early turn conflicts were really minimal - most powers signed 1st-turn alliances or non-aggression agreements with most others. Entirely understandable given that no-one wanted to make lasting enemies before they'd figured out what they were up to ... and also given that the aggressive actions didn't pay so well ... but I assume Frontier had expected much more aggressive play where most expansions failed, as well as less immediate cooperation within the Empire and Federation.

I wonder ... what would happen if they put the original Overhead curve back in now? [1] - Consolidation allows powers to avoid expanding themselves into turmoil, so the original issue of it being unavoidable if no-one attacks you is gone.

Then, as space naturally opens up as powers retreat and others aren't able to take the space, add new powers to those regions (for sustainability of the new powers, a fast-track Dangerous Games probably makes most sense).

It could be narratively justified by the Thargoid events making communications more difficult and commandeering logistics capacity for the war effort.

[1] Well, obviously the larger powers would hit instant turmoil everywhere. Perhaps it could gradually be phased in over several cycles to allow them to execute a more controlled retreat with more choice over which systems they keep.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A logical solution would be to grow the bubble each year, with terraforming colonies becoming more established, and allowing more room for expansion (and thus making powers stretch themselves).

But then, that concept would fail again unless powers were compelled to expand, or punished for consolidating (which outside PP rules seems illogical).

The bottom line is that Powerplay as FD envisioned it is dead because it never was 'complete' to begin with- if it was, Delaine and Torval would have been eliminated with a few possible others and we would have seen new powers pop up (Core Dynamics? Halsey?)

Personally I'd like to know what plans FD have to either correct Powerplay or what they intend for it in the future. It should dovetail into many aspects of the game (PvP being the most recent example) but without a reason to exist it will remain a zombie and sadly unpopular.

 

[Martin Schou]

I wonder ... what would happen if they put the original Overhead curve back in now? [1]

[1] Well, obviously the larger powers would hit instant turmoil everywhere. Perhaps it could gradually be phased in over several cycles to allow them to execute a more controlled retreat with more choice over which systems they keep.

The large powers would instantly fold and end up stuck at the bottom of the board afterwards.

Using Mahon as an example, he'd instantly face about 30,000 CC as his overheads - 18,000 more than his total income. Once that becomes obvious to everyone else in PowerPlay, he is going to have every single valuable control system in automatic turmoil, because every other power would (or at least should) undermine every single system he has, and leave the worst systems alone.

As a result, the valuable systems end up with default upkeeps and go first on the chopping board. I did the maths a while ago, and Mahon ends up with around 40 close-in systems and a fairly nasty default deficit. The only way this doesn't happen, is if every other power decides to do the stupid thing and not attack him.

In the current set of rules, it is borderline impossible to shed bad systems, and for Mahon it is impossible to do so without a massive amount of trust being put into the people doing the undermining AND requires saboteurs to not fortify the bad systems, and even then it's fairly close to impossible to shed systems like MCC 686, Wolf 412 and Akheilos. Those are millstones around his economic neck, and their upkeeps (even if undermined) are lower than the default upkeeps of some of his valuable systems.

I don't mind if PowerPlay changes, but if a change is the immediate death knell for the power that's been on top of the leaderboard for 75% of PowerPlay, that change is absolutely the wrong change to make, and going back to that system absolutely will be.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

Any change to Powerplay along similar lines to my proposed +1ly bonus for huge control systems and -1ly for small or -2ly for only outpost would require that Powers be able to make internal adjustments more easily.

How about reusing the nominations part of the UI so that a Power could nominate one of its own systems to drop, with a 75% vote required? Then if that system were also undermined that cycle, it would be dropped without the need for turmoil.

It also seems odd that a Power can increase the undermining triggers by flipping systems however it can't extract any more CC out of favourable governments, +1CC favourable -1CC unfavourable might both help Powers get more reward for their efforts and help to establish new Powers based on minor factions.

Without changes to either the system or population growth it is difficult to see how the Powerplay bubble can expand while it is based on 15ly control spheres, there isn't the necessary density of populated systems. If there was a switch to direct control of minor factions these problems disappear along with all the other administrative problems caused by the 15ly spheres, including fifth column issues.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

A logical solution would be to grow the bubble each year, with terraforming colonies becoming more established, and allowing more room for expansion (and thus making powers stretch themselves).

But then, that concept would fail again unless powers were compelled to expand, or punished for consolidating (which outside PP rules seems illogical).

PP seems stable, albeit too stable as it seems too static.

I like the idea of the bubble being expanded, would possibly involve Terraforming systems becoming Agricultural. Some control systems would become more profitable and less of a drain for some, if not all powers. I have seen systems not have stations only for it to be updated with them so I guess these things can happen and probably should. It's more realistic than "beam me to a far distant corner of the galaxy while in a drunken stupor" type thing....

I remember when there was talk of factions being able to rebel against a Power, Freedom fighters I think, and something like that would help shake things up a bit. Trying to get certain goods in some areas can be an absolute nightmare and having "trade wars" would be a good thing(a reason to fight over things). Basically like system flipping to make goods legal only for it to also stop the Power over-riding any efforts made (would probably involve faction takeovers as well if loyal to the power). It makes any effort to flip a system pointless if the Power involved is basically untouchable.
It doesn't always need to be about trade either, just an example of why a system may be targeted. Could just be a minor faction wanting their rights, or some push from one of the other Powers, works for many different reasons.

This could allow Control systems to be weakened to the point where the overheads are raised, fortification gets higher and maybe other stuff, I'm not a PP expert so y'know, if anything else comes to mind. I do like the BGS though so I'm just trying to incorporate both things together.

So, should there be a way for a Power to shed the system? It definitely should not be free and have a significant cost to do so to stop Powers easily shedding systems, no easy road, especially if you're a big power. So much so it would hamper them from expanding and something they would need to work for, much in the same way as if they were trying to expand into a system. Basically, something you save for and takes effort.

So, I don't know what the conditions should be for a Power to lose control of a Control System...
Should it be attacking the actual Control system or about maybe turning the factions present in that system to unfavoured ones, like a balance of power thing?

Anyway, just throwing it out there for Human consumption. Better the words than a Banana, right?