My Two Credits:
I tried PP...wasn't all that interested for long, mostly because it is terrible at communicating what my role as a faction supporter is. It reminds me very much of Faction Warfare in EVE Online in this regard. So, my opinions:
Faction Channel
Simply a dedicated chat channel for pledged commanders. Emissaries (detailed next) have different color names and text to distinguish themselves.
Power Play Emissaries
I would suggest that the top 10 commanders contributing to a faction are designated as 'Emissaries' for that faction. Being an emissary grants certain benefits, most of which are geared towards communicating strategy for the faction and granting minor control over that strategy.
- Emissaries have five times the voting power of the typical pledged commander
- Emissaries have access to the 'Faction Message Board', a message board that all members of the faction can view for suggestions or orders from the Emissaries
- Emissaries can 'force' a system to exceed consolidation vote if three or more of them vote on it. This means up to three systems can be simultaneously forced above consolidation, regardless of total votes.
- Emissaries are determined on a monthly (four week) cycle. They can only be replaced by outperformance.
Power Play Objectives
This is the lever for Frontier to pull on to generate additional conflict or throw a wrench into a monotonous series. Power Play Objectives are essentially community goals specific to Power Play that will declare a 'battleground' system. GalNet article explains why Patreus and Mahon are having at it, or whoever.
- The PPO is a CG that measures merits gained in that system.
- Both factions will have 'taken temporary command' of a station, each, in the system.
- Merits are gained through the usual means specific to the faction and PP PvP: designated goods can be shipped to the faction's station, much like with Fortified systems, to gain merits. Bonds turned in generate merits as well. The key is that all merits must be earned in the system to be counted towards the CG.
- The faction that wins the CG is awarded a boost to their CC for the current powerplay cycle.
- Once the CG ends, the system returns to whoever the normal authorities are and falls back under the PP faction that would normally control it - even if that faction 'lost' the system. The CG system will never be a control system for a faction.
Other Thoughts
I get the argument for Open Play only - I generally play Open Play only myself, if only because I like to see other players on occasion. Personally, I'm a solo commander who isn't interested in squadrons and winging up. That said, I don't think the solution to solo 5c movements or the lack of danger to trader-oriented factions in solo mode is to prevent these commanders from participating. If you close the solo box, you've gotta close the PG box, too - which would be disastrous, to be honest.
I think if we want to get to a 'fair' system of merit gains between solo, pg, and open, we've got to look at setting NPC interactions more central to the fight. NPC faction-specific ships could be worth more merits, rendering the 'need' for commanders to kill obsolete to be competitive. At this stage, it becomes 'who has more commanders' supporting - but now combat-oriented factions have a fighting chance against an army of Type-9s and Cutters in solo or pg. Would you rather be killing those commanders? Sure, I get that - I've played pirate before - but those players have a right to play the game alone, a right Frontier has unequivocally supported.
So, I'd suggest providing other avenues for merit generation and maybe not pigeon-hole the factions into their play style so much. It's that or trade merits vs combat merits has to be arbitrarily balanced. FDev probably has the data to figure that balance out, but it seems more like an appeasement for one side rather than creating opportunities for both sides to compete.
On Fifth Column
I get the anger around 5c, but I'm in the camp of 'a little espionage is fitting' - it's a
political feature system, after all. But I also agree that 5c movements seem to be getting a bit out of hand. The Emissaries idea or something similar potentially fixes that with both designated voting powers to the top commanders, but also greater transparency: if the strategy of voting is clearly depicted to commanders in-game, failure to see that strategy supported clearly means one of two conclusions:
- The overall commander block does not support the Emissary strategy
- There is a strong 5C presence in the faction
You can determine the second by determining the first: you broadcasted the strategy
in game, not some reddit channel I can't be bothered to find, and you can see the commanders communicating with you in the chat channel. A commander that even halfway understands the game will know not to vote for consolidation without good reason. A dedicated chat allows leadership to gauge overall faction population feelings - if they think your strategy stinks, they'll say so
and vote so, your big votes be darned! If they are 5C, they won't say anything - or be trollish in chat - and you'll have your answer.
By giving Emissaries the ability to,
together, designate at least three systems, you can significantly reduce 5c effectiveness. If commanders are truly dedicated to maintaining top merits for their faction - even if their goal is to
ruin that faction - they deserve the ability to do so, and commanders below them must choose whether to follow...or step up and lead. If I told you that Torval basically has no
real leaders, how many PP commanders would rush to try and take ownership? I'd argue many PP commanders would be
more involved across
all factions if there was a system for designated leadership.
My thoughts.