So you have to tread carefully when designing a system to "add challenge". Start small and work up.
I disagree that "(combat) challenge" should specifically be an end goal of PP. I do not disagree that "(combat) challenge" opportunities should be available but disagree "(combat) challenge" opportunities should scale
automatically with level of contribution.
What I would propose is something along the lines of a merger of the Imperial/Federal rank system and their corresponding Imperial/Federal faction reputation with rank up missions being required to ascend to the next level (to a point). Beyond that point, the highest ranks could be based on a league table of relative performance during the previous PP cycle in a similar fashion to CG contribution reward tiers.
This revised PP rank progression system could then be used as a means to moderate both level of challenge and level of influence perhaps with diminishing rewards for those that do not choose to progress to the next level. The rank progression mission themselves would need to provide guaranteed combat opposition comparable to the level of combat opposition they would likely face after attaining the rank with a select-able alternative reward (to progression) of personal credits (for example).
The activity/decisions of the leader board based higher ranks could then be used to help influence available missions for the lower ranking PP participants (
and the direction(s) of expansion for the power as a whole). In order to avoid deliberate disruption of PP activities overall, these higher level "PP leadership ranks" (for want of a better term) could be subject to policing and moderation direct by FD if deemed necessary.
It could be the case that these higher leadership ranks (in part or whole) could be gated by Open Only and perhaps involve some direct PvP activities (
e.g. some form of moderated PvP competition/tournament) given their level of impact on PP as a whole. Alternatively (
and my personal preference), they may need to put forward their candidacy for consideration and leadership rank be determined first by being "PP-aligned player votes/support" (
perhaps once a month/quarter/year unless they abdicate or found absent for more than a set period of time) and secondly by relative level of PP performance. In the case of absolute tie-breaker situations, an influence sharing mechanic would need to be applied - e.g. an even split of leadership influence points. In the case of one or more absent "PP leader", their "silent" influence would be fairly distributed across the other leaders in such a way as to maintain the tiered level of influence system.
The key point with the above is that the leadership ranks would at least in part lose any entitlement to anonymity (
from an in-game persona perspective) and perhaps be modelled on a democratic proportional representation system of governance. Such a system should in theory be highly resistant to 5C disruption if the leadership ranks (
and how they influence PP) are modelled appropriately.
Whether the leadership ranks should constrained to Open Only (or not) is a matter for FD to decide on BUT the key point would be that the Open Only constraint would only apply to such ranks. Personally, I would prefer to keep it mode neutral and let the players elect their PP leaders from those that put themselves forward for the responsibility (
subject to proving themselves via progression through the lower PP ranks). The Open participation aspect would then become a matter of choice with all of the candidates perhaps having their mode preferences (
and/or level of Open participation) being a matter of record available to PP allies both before and after being elected.
In such a system, PP related PvE challenge level would also be scaled according to PP rank in a similar fashion to how combat mission difficulty scales with combat rank.
