It's been integrated into Multi-Crew at CQC stations...
Powerplay Is PowerPlay dead?
- Thread starter Calrissian
- Start date
It's been integrated into Multi-Crew at CQC stations...
Mahon NEUTRAL!? Ha ha ha ha.
Antal neutral?
Oh no no no my friend.
Grom I don't get because I thought they would have been on their way to the top 5 by now considering that competition.
ALD is still attacking Winters and Hudson to secure the EMPORER of the Empire a 4th place position. Lol. How impressive should one be with the Empire when its' figurehead isn't even in the top 3? The Empire is largely enjoying their turn in Mahon-Xeres's bed chamber while they leave Patreaus to be the whipping boy.
They kind of always have been. They only fight when someone forces them too. There were a lot of reportedly fun exchanges between Patreus and Antal over Kenna.
It's unclear what happened there. It's possible that Power Play isn't what they though it'd be and are still learning the ropes.
Well, as far as I can remember, Torval and Aisling were last subject to attack from a hostile Power around Cycle 20. ALD is like a Cutter in a Conflict Zone, drawing all the aggravation from hostile Powers as long as possible. And we endured the attacks until the hostile powers decided to become a fifth column and sabotage our prep list for 6 months. They bloated our overlapped systems by spending 1.4 billion credits a week for six months, and succeeded in claiming 1 system that ALD procured before the 2.1 bug which practically forced ALD to steamroll expansions on auto-pilot for several months. It was that steamrolling that enabled the fifth column's success.
Essentially, Galactic Power Standing doesn't make a lot of sense, and most ignore it entirely.
A very long time ago the Emperor and the Admiral of the Fleet decided that any Imperial Power in the top 3 is a victory for the Empire at large.
Last edited:
There's nothing for them to expand to profitably, so they're stuck below Patreus due to system count.
There's so much wrong in what your saying here that I'm trying to figure out where to start.
Ok. If most people ignore the Galactic Standings illustration then Power Play is definitely dead and that MOST is not the Alliance. Have you taken the time to look at their infrastructure? They DEFINITELY are concerned about THEIR standing! There are benefits to being in the top 3 that no-one cares about except the Alliance it seems because they are reaping the greatest benefit!
"An Imperial Power in the top 3 is a victory for the Empire at large." This sounds like a cop out on the Empire's part to facilitate Mahon. I'm sorry, but it does. - - The Empire doesn't care who's on top as long as an Imperial power is in the top 3 is bull&^%$ because if it was a Federal power there the Empire would be all over them like white on rice and all 3 are continuing to just let Mahon slide. Why? Because like I keep saying, Mahon has got the Empire in his bedchamber with Patreaus chained up to watch! The EMPORER is CONTENT with NOT being the figurehead seat of the Empire and perfectly fine with a foreign power having more sway then her. Honestly, does this not make the Empire somewhat laughable?
If all this doesn't make sense to you readers or you simply don't care, then my question is definitely answered. Power Play IS dead and Frontier should remove it ASAP to free up the code for other content.
Everybody has setbacks in the game. It's how folks handle the bounce back that defines you. If the ALD bounce back is to sit in 4th place behind 2 other Imperial powers while being a "trick" for Mahon, what's the motivation to join them?
I get the appeal of the Alliance and Mahon. That's the power for folks that want to ice-skate uphill. I don't see the appeal of going with folks that want to settle for being second, third, or fourth best.
Last edited:
@Calrissian
I think perhaps you misunderstand what standing is, and why most ignore it. For ALD to reach top 3 right now, we'd have to expand into deficit systems because there are no other options. Destroy our economy and leave us as vulnerable to collapse as we were after months of 5C.
Mahon consistently had worthwhile places to expand to and that got them to #1 (not to discount their phenomenally industrious playerbase). Give them nowhere to expand and they'll go nowhere, like the rest.
Would we like to be the highest of the Imperial Powers? Sure. Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot to get there? No. There isn't any goal but survival, so why would we? To suggest, as you seem to, that an Emperor must demand dominance in the whole world rather than just in their own empire...is laughable. 100 historical empires had no further realistic ambition than their own backyard.
Plenty of people want Powerplay to be a clear cut push for dominance. It absolutely isn't. Each Power is given their own benefits and problems to overcome, by design, and doing that is essentially always more vital to long term survival than standing.
TL;DR if you believe it's a bad design, fine - hundreds or thousands will agree, no doubt - but that's rather different than telling people who've been at this for two years that what they think is true, isn't, with only your opinion as evidence.
I think perhaps you misunderstand what standing is, and why most ignore it. For ALD to reach top 3 right now, we'd have to expand into deficit systems because there are no other options. Destroy our economy and leave us as vulnerable to collapse as we were after months of 5C.
Mahon consistently had worthwhile places to expand to and that got them to #1 (not to discount their phenomenally industrious playerbase). Give them nowhere to expand and they'll go nowhere, like the rest.
Would we like to be the highest of the Imperial Powers? Sure. Are we going to shoot ourselves in the foot to get there? No. There isn't any goal but survival, so why would we? To suggest, as you seem to, that an Emperor must demand dominance in the whole world rather than just in their own empire...is laughable. 100 historical empires had no further realistic ambition than their own backyard.
Plenty of people want Powerplay to be a clear cut push for dominance. It absolutely isn't. Each Power is given their own benefits and problems to overcome, by design, and doing that is essentially always more vital to long term survival than standing.
TL;DR if you believe it's a bad design, fine - hundreds or thousands will agree, no doubt - but that's rather different than telling people who've been at this for two years that what they think is true, isn't, with only your opinion as evidence.
Last edited:
This reads like something someone who has only the most basic possible understanding of powerplay would say.
Powerplay dead? Yes, but not according to all the blind die hard bean counters who have constantly exhorted deminishing pledges to fulfill the core minimum quotas.
They want the mechanics to continue to change so that ever fewer drones will continue to keep powers afloat, and that it is then also virtually impossible for other equally motivated groups to create any interesting drama in their dull spreadsheets.
Perish the thought there should be interesting drama.
Nothing happening is better than anything happening it seems, which does actually support the idea that FD are more interested in PvE than PvP.
Successful it seems. How dull. Yet, the leadership cannot make the link. Again, how dull.
Now confirmed by FD that such an approach has killed Powerplay. No more significant development for you. Fact.
Bravo
They want the mechanics to continue to change so that ever fewer drones will continue to keep powers afloat, and that it is then also virtually impossible for other equally motivated groups to create any interesting drama in their dull spreadsheets.
Perish the thought there should be interesting drama.
Nothing happening is better than anything happening it seems, which does actually support the idea that FD are more interested in PvE than PvP.
Successful it seems. How dull. Yet, the leadership cannot make the link. Again, how dull.
Now confirmed by FD that such an approach has killed Powerplay. No more significant development for you. Fact.
Bravo
Most of us "bean counters" only continue to count beans because people keep showing up and asking what they can do to help. They deserve some level of support, IMO.
On our end I haven't seen any limitation placed on groups' or individuals' RP in two years beyond just simple rules of the game, so perhaps you'll enlighten me xDreadnoughtx. We don't just make up what is helpful or harmful to a Power. They're objective facts afaik. If you have some example where that's not true I'd be interested to hear it.
On our end I haven't seen any limitation placed on groups' or individuals' RP in two years beyond just simple rules of the game, so perhaps you'll enlighten me xDreadnoughtx. We don't just make up what is helpful or harmful to a Power. They're objective facts afaik. If you have some example where that's not true I'd be interested to hear it.
Last edited:
Hi. Blind, die-hard bean-counter here. Powerplay is not dead. Powerplay is stagnant.
1. Powerplay is mechanically stagnant. Consolidation is the only significant mechanical change since overheads were adjusted early on.
2. Powerplay strongly favors defense.
3. Participation is low for all powers, and is unevenly spread across powers.
Powerplay's long-term mechanical stagnation is heavily tied to my third point; we all know that the core activities (fortification and undermining) are unpopular. With no real improvement in 97 weeks, veterans are finding it hard to justify continuing. The second result of powerplay's mechanical stagnation is that power leadership teams understand exactly how the system works and how to manipulate it in their power's favor. We don't make decisions based solely on spreadsheets, though. We make decisions based on what we think is possible, and what we think will be interesting. I do not believe that attempting to do something we know is mathematically impossible, or close to, is interesting for anyone. Climbing a hill is one thing. Trying to walk up a wall is another.
The problem is that powerplay is so favorable for the defender. It's not just that targeting specific systems for turmoil is nearly impossible. The bigger issue is that it is easier to fortify a system than it is to undermine it. Yes, there's cost involved, but after a year of stacked scan and massacre missions, veterans and new blood have the deep pockets they need to protect their powers. For a power like Patreus that has had a standing surplus for as long as I can remember, this used to mean fortifying systems to 50% in an attempt to manage our surplus. For other powers it meant building to 0 CC and then fortifying to at least 200 so that you could piggyback on what everyone else was doing in an attempt to avoid ruining your power with bad expansions.
Consolidation helped by giving powers the ability to simply not expand. Some people feel that this is the core problem — that powers need to be trapped, oscillating between surplus and deficit, with everyone constantly trying to scrap to stem the tide. The real problem that consolidation introduced is the defense bonus. Being able to decline to expand was enough. Having an impetus to fortify to 500 CC every single week is too much. It means that powers are habitually covering their best systems and are rewarded by a mechanic that makes it even harder to undermine the rare profitable system that isn't unfortified — and it takes four or five good systems fully undermined to push one into turmoil when powers are forecasting 500 CC weekly.
Some powers are incredibly defensible even without a consolidation bonus, as we saw again last week when Winters fortified out of a -500 CC turmoil by Sunday night. 97 weeks is a lot of time for powers to spend working on their triggers. Powers like Hudson, ALD, and Aisling, which can rely on significantly larger player bases and more fresh blood than other powers, due to strong bonuses, a good starting location, or the waifu factor, have managed to generate the manpower they need to cover their profitable systems even though they have no reduced triggers and a -400 CC deficit. While ending with hundreds of CC to buff their undermining triggers. Aisling in particular is amazing. Their economy is worse than Hudson's and they are still ending with close to 700 CC every week.
The overhead curve is part of the problem, too. Archon Delaine is, once again, almost mathematically impossible to turmoil. Only a few fortified systems will protect him. Yuri Grom is sitting higher up on the overhead curve, but it's a similar story there. Patreus is sitting at 54 systems, which means that putting us into turmoil is more possible — but forcing us to lose more than one system at a time would take a massive effort and would result in that system going to one of our allies anyway, which is, I suspect, directly contrary to our enemies' aims. Think about this: we could lose our absolute best system and have a higher starting balance next week because of it.
Let's step back to point 1: mechanical stagnation and bad gameplay. The core idea behind powerplay attracts people, and the communities that have built up around it keeps them involved. Enough of them, at least. But defense, while mechanically favored, is not fun. It costs money, it costs time, and it is incredibly repetitive.
Power communities do not want to be attacked. No one wants to fortify. Some people prefer it to undermining, but I doubt you will find many people who enjoy moving more than 5k tons a week. This induces some power leaders to stay out of the wider conflict (though some powers are entirely happy playing SimCity, which is fine, but I digress), which in turn induces powers to seek peace if possible. Is this a leadership problem? Are powers making the wrong decisions when they make decisions that are designed to strengthen their communities? Of course not. This is a problem with the game, not with power leadership.
Powers are also induced for this reason and others (basic IR theory) to form alliances. The four Empire powers are allied. This is partly due to mechanics, and partly due to a lot of hard work early on to prevent Frontier from railroading us into civil war (but hey, maybe they'll make it happen the second time! Good luck, Drew!). The two Federal powers are allied. Again, mechanics drove this. I imagine it took less work politically, as Frontier never pushed a narrative designed to force the Federal powers to go to war. I'm sure it took some, though, as there were some very strong personalities in the mix back then. Most of the other powers, who lack pre-built alliances, have worked to remain neutral as a result. Two of the independents have allied with the larger blocs (though one of them, for some bizarre reason, still insists that it is all alone in the galaxy).
I worked very hard on the ZYADA alliance, which tied the Empire powers together with Grom. I've received a lot of flak for that, as though I somehow did it alone (wrong) and somehow killed the last chance Powerplay had at becoming interesting. Some CMDRs in other powers seemed to have had this stupid, hilarious fantasy where the Empire, Alliance and Federation would join hands and fight the "red menace" together. I'm not going to into too much detail about how since-retired Winters leadership made this utterly impossible, but it was mechanically unrealistic as well. What would we have done? All join hands while kicking Grom in the teeth in a pointless attempt at keeping him in his starting systems until the end of time? Where would the fun in that be? Why bully the only truly fresh blood powerplay's ever had? It would have made the game even more static. It wouldn't have moved any systems.
Instead, we built an alliance against the Federation that has been very successful and created more dynamism than we could have otherwise seen. In the last three months, we've fought over weaponized expansions. We've launched incredible offensives. We've seen incredible defenses. Systems have changed hands, and stories have been told.
But it's slow. It's all very slow. Winters and Hudson are now consistently in the bottom half of the galactic standings. We're going to keep them there. Is that stagnation? Maybe. But it's been a long slog, because powerplay is a long slog.
Powerplay is mechanically broken. It's stagnant. It is desperate for attention. But it's not dead.
- - - Updated - - -
Really, really, really bad for Hudson. Really bad for the rest of us.
1. Powerplay is mechanically stagnant. Consolidation is the only significant mechanical change since overheads were adjusted early on.
2. Powerplay strongly favors defense.
3. Participation is low for all powers, and is unevenly spread across powers.
Powerplay's long-term mechanical stagnation is heavily tied to my third point; we all know that the core activities (fortification and undermining) are unpopular. With no real improvement in 97 weeks, veterans are finding it hard to justify continuing. The second result of powerplay's mechanical stagnation is that power leadership teams understand exactly how the system works and how to manipulate it in their power's favor. We don't make decisions based solely on spreadsheets, though. We make decisions based on what we think is possible, and what we think will be interesting. I do not believe that attempting to do something we know is mathematically impossible, or close to, is interesting for anyone. Climbing a hill is one thing. Trying to walk up a wall is another.
The problem is that powerplay is so favorable for the defender. It's not just that targeting specific systems for turmoil is nearly impossible. The bigger issue is that it is easier to fortify a system than it is to undermine it. Yes, there's cost involved, but after a year of stacked scan and massacre missions, veterans and new blood have the deep pockets they need to protect their powers. For a power like Patreus that has had a standing surplus for as long as I can remember, this used to mean fortifying systems to 50% in an attempt to manage our surplus. For other powers it meant building to 0 CC and then fortifying to at least 200 so that you could piggyback on what everyone else was doing in an attempt to avoid ruining your power with bad expansions.
Consolidation helped by giving powers the ability to simply not expand. Some people feel that this is the core problem — that powers need to be trapped, oscillating between surplus and deficit, with everyone constantly trying to scrap to stem the tide. The real problem that consolidation introduced is the defense bonus. Being able to decline to expand was enough. Having an impetus to fortify to 500 CC every single week is too much. It means that powers are habitually covering their best systems and are rewarded by a mechanic that makes it even harder to undermine the rare profitable system that isn't unfortified — and it takes four or five good systems fully undermined to push one into turmoil when powers are forecasting 500 CC weekly.
Some powers are incredibly defensible even without a consolidation bonus, as we saw again last week when Winters fortified out of a -500 CC turmoil by Sunday night. 97 weeks is a lot of time for powers to spend working on their triggers. Powers like Hudson, ALD, and Aisling, which can rely on significantly larger player bases and more fresh blood than other powers, due to strong bonuses, a good starting location, or the waifu factor, have managed to generate the manpower they need to cover their profitable systems even though they have no reduced triggers and a -400 CC deficit. While ending with hundreds of CC to buff their undermining triggers. Aisling in particular is amazing. Their economy is worse than Hudson's and they are still ending with close to 700 CC every week.
The overhead curve is part of the problem, too. Archon Delaine is, once again, almost mathematically impossible to turmoil. Only a few fortified systems will protect him. Yuri Grom is sitting higher up on the overhead curve, but it's a similar story there. Patreus is sitting at 54 systems, which means that putting us into turmoil is more possible — but forcing us to lose more than one system at a time would take a massive effort and would result in that system going to one of our allies anyway, which is, I suspect, directly contrary to our enemies' aims. Think about this: we could lose our absolute best system and have a higher starting balance next week because of it.
Let's step back to point 1: mechanical stagnation and bad gameplay. The core idea behind powerplay attracts people, and the communities that have built up around it keeps them involved. Enough of them, at least. But defense, while mechanically favored, is not fun. It costs money, it costs time, and it is incredibly repetitive.
Power communities do not want to be attacked. No one wants to fortify. Some people prefer it to undermining, but I doubt you will find many people who enjoy moving more than 5k tons a week. This induces some power leaders to stay out of the wider conflict (though some powers are entirely happy playing SimCity, which is fine, but I digress), which in turn induces powers to seek peace if possible. Is this a leadership problem? Are powers making the wrong decisions when they make decisions that are designed to strengthen their communities? Of course not. This is a problem with the game, not with power leadership.
Powers are also induced for this reason and others (basic IR theory) to form alliances. The four Empire powers are allied. This is partly due to mechanics, and partly due to a lot of hard work early on to prevent Frontier from railroading us into civil war (but hey, maybe they'll make it happen the second time! Good luck, Drew!). The two Federal powers are allied. Again, mechanics drove this. I imagine it took less work politically, as Frontier never pushed a narrative designed to force the Federal powers to go to war. I'm sure it took some, though, as there were some very strong personalities in the mix back then. Most of the other powers, who lack pre-built alliances, have worked to remain neutral as a result. Two of the independents have allied with the larger blocs (though one of them, for some bizarre reason, still insists that it is all alone in the galaxy).
I worked very hard on the ZYADA alliance, which tied the Empire powers together with Grom. I've received a lot of flak for that, as though I somehow did it alone (wrong) and somehow killed the last chance Powerplay had at becoming interesting. Some CMDRs in other powers seemed to have had this stupid, hilarious fantasy where the Empire, Alliance and Federation would join hands and fight the "red menace" together. I'm not going to into too much detail about how since-retired Winters leadership made this utterly impossible, but it was mechanically unrealistic as well. What would we have done? All join hands while kicking Grom in the teeth in a pointless attempt at keeping him in his starting systems until the end of time? Where would the fun in that be? Why bully the only truly fresh blood powerplay's ever had? It would have made the game even more static. It wouldn't have moved any systems.
Instead, we built an alliance against the Federation that has been very successful and created more dynamism than we could have otherwise seen. In the last three months, we've fought over weaponized expansions. We've launched incredible offensives. We've seen incredible defenses. Systems have changed hands, and stories have been told.
But it's slow. It's all very slow. Winters and Hudson are now consistently in the bottom half of the galactic standings. We're going to keep them there. Is that stagnation? Maybe. But it's been a long slog, because powerplay is a long slog.
Powerplay is mechanically broken. It's stagnant. It is desperate for attention. But it's not dead.
- - - Updated - - -
Really, really, really bad for Hudson. Really bad for the rest of us.
Last edited:
Yeah, the Kumo Crew decided if either us or Mahon were first that would be a victory.
I couldn't stop laughing when I read this! You have NO idea! LOL!
- - - Updated - - -
I didn't misunderstand anything. Get off your Empire butts and take new territory. If all the free territory is terrible, take someone else's territory. IMO it should be Mahon territory. But instead, and IMO, all these excuses keep cropping up instead of a plan because Mahon is a great lover of the Imperial women.
Last edited:
I know right? A player should have to choose their initial allegiance at the beginning of the game. Any use of a ship against your allegiance should warrant an influence penalty.
Example...
Federation - 40% influence penalty for using any Imperial ships
Empire - 40% influence penalty for using Federal ships
Alliance - 20% penalty for using either Federation and Imperial ships.
I think this would fix that.
I didn't misunderstand anything. Get off your Empire butts and take new territory. If all the free territory is terrible, take someone else's territory. IMO it should be Mahon territory. But instead, and IMO, all these excuses keep cropping up instead of a plan because Mahon is a great lover of the Imperial women.
Right yeah, the misunderstanding is mine. I would have thought by now most had a clue that you can't "take someone else's territory". My mistake.
If Powerplay had that sort of dynamism, we probably wouldn't have an "is Powerplay dead?" thread every month or so.
Last edited:
As a solo pledger, I'd have to say ZYADA didn't sit well with me as I'm sure many others. It's almost like the powers are run by player factions and those who lead them. Sure I follow along with the recommended fortifications, consolidating voting, contribute to bgs flipping, and understand most uncontrolled systems in reach are all unprofitable now. But most all other avenues such as who to undermine and what to prep or instead consolidate seems to be decided by factions. There is also the Aisling mystery of 5C prep of Yaque, the biggest splurge of merit hauling for the last year, which some are guessing is motivated more by internal player faction strife than any actual external power.
Last edited:
That's really the trouble. What you see now as player factions running things was, over the course of Powerplay, a more organic process.
Most Power's coordination teams are or were composed of volunteers from pledged groups as well as independents (at various points we clamoured for volunteers; turnover was very high). Some of those chose to become groups in their own right, others not.
The reality is that people slowly began to follow those people because they could demonstrate, time and again, that they knew what they were about. Our team of volunteers in ALD, for instance, never claimed the right to tell anyone what to do, only to answer the question "what would objectively/mechanically be best for the Power right now?" A great many have chosen to follow that, some don't. It was made very clear that our team had agreed to ZYADA, not the Power in whatever sense that might mean. Follow or don't, that's up to each CMDR. We've spent a rather tremendous amount of time trying to get the mass of players involved in such discussions, only to find that almost none care to participate in that way.
For other Powers I'm less familiar with their development, but still somewhat familiar. People who, generally through some relation to their careers (e.g. software engineers etc), could display a more thorough understanding of the utterly-not-explained mechanics early on tended to form small teams, which grew larger with volunteers over time. Now people look at the result and see domination, and occasionally try to posit those volunteers as despots of some ridiculous sort.
One disagreement that has come up many times is coordinators vs. RP-focused groups or sometimes individuals. The latter want to see Powerplay driven more by RP motives. Sounds fine, right? Problem is, one RP perspective, once pushed onto a Power, necessarily steamrolls the RP perspective of a great many others. It's a recipe for strife, and so over time the most widely accepted leadership is often from those with little interest on pushing a specific RP perspective. Turn the wheel back around, and those same RP-focused groups and individuals find that sort of leadership cold, mundane, and so-on, and either disappear from PP or try to malign them.
There's not really an answer to that. If you want a Power driven by RP, the only question is "whose should take precedence?" Good luck ever agreeing on that.
Most Power's coordination teams are or were composed of volunteers from pledged groups as well as independents (at various points we clamoured for volunteers; turnover was very high). Some of those chose to become groups in their own right, others not.
The reality is that people slowly began to follow those people because they could demonstrate, time and again, that they knew what they were about. Our team of volunteers in ALD, for instance, never claimed the right to tell anyone what to do, only to answer the question "what would objectively/mechanically be best for the Power right now?" A great many have chosen to follow that, some don't. It was made very clear that our team had agreed to ZYADA, not the Power in whatever sense that might mean. Follow or don't, that's up to each CMDR. We've spent a rather tremendous amount of time trying to get the mass of players involved in such discussions, only to find that almost none care to participate in that way.
For other Powers I'm less familiar with their development, but still somewhat familiar. People who, generally through some relation to their careers (e.g. software engineers etc), could display a more thorough understanding of the utterly-not-explained mechanics early on tended to form small teams, which grew larger with volunteers over time. Now people look at the result and see domination, and occasionally try to posit those volunteers as despots of some ridiculous sort.
One disagreement that has come up many times is coordinators vs. RP-focused groups or sometimes individuals. The latter want to see Powerplay driven more by RP motives. Sounds fine, right? Problem is, one RP perspective, once pushed onto a Power, necessarily steamrolls the RP perspective of a great many others. It's a recipe for strife, and so over time the most widely accepted leadership is often from those with little interest on pushing a specific RP perspective. Turn the wheel back around, and those same RP-focused groups and individuals find that sort of leadership cold, mundane, and so-on, and either disappear from PP or try to malign them.
There's not really an answer to that. If you want a Power driven by RP, the only question is "whose should take precedence?" Good luck ever agreeing on that.
Last edited:
ZYADA is just a tool to keep Grom weak, or to direct him to attack Antal to help out Patreus, who for some reason won't do any work to improve their position.
Its hard to say any of the players in the powers except the top 2 are doing whats in their powers best interests.
There are plenty of opportunities for most of the powers to advance their standings, with perhaps ALD and AIsling being in the worst position to improve where they are.
The powers do not give any direction. They do not issue commands. The information they do give is often incorrect. Powers are run by organized communities; player factions are sometimes part of this, sometimes not. Aisling and Grom are dominated by one player faction (Aisling's Angels, which even then is only part of Aisling leadership, and EG Pilots), but most of the other powers are largely group-agnostic or split across several. Most of Patreus leadership now is part of a specific player group, but that group was created specifically to improve the power's organization.
This is some high-grade tinfoil.
Last edited: