Powerplay: rewarding hostility and making the Galactic Standing reward power activity

[Rubbernuke]

Builds on ideas from this previous thread:

Powerplay community goals (similar to weekly missions but power wide)

A quick and crazy idea.... Why not have per Power community goals? A community goal is essentially one shared task, so why not have each power have a set task each cycle? For example: Expand 10 systems Gain stronghold for 5 systems Undermine 10 systems until the become unoccupied ...and so...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Powerplay 1 had a (not fully implemented) turmoil and collapse mechanism that gave powers something to avoid. In PP2 we don't really have anything like it, for good and bad.

The thread I linked talks about weekly missions that Powers would be given but....what if they were taken further? What I mean is, that there are gains and losses for powers that are meaningful and worth attacking / defending. For example:

Powers have a fixed goal of fully removing 10 systems from one power. If done, the victim globally loses either all or a % of its bonuses for the next cycle. So in PP2 terms, it would be like (for one cycle) being reduced in rank and losing the corresponding perks.

Powers would also have bonuses for any rival system they render unoccupied- say, the credit rewards in the rankings or fixed amounts. So if Winters takes down a Torval system, a Grom system every player gets 50 million for each system (so in this example 100 million per player).

Taken together this makes attacking have a prize- either as beserker tactics (money) and focussed (causing pain to a rival power).

Larger powers would be in a funny poisition as having more territory being an issue- defence would be needed as 10 systems out of 1000 is harder to defend (and scout) rather than 10 in 100. It would also disrupt powers enough to be a 'loss' thats actually felt. In lore terms losing territory should be like losing face and a power leader losing grip on systems.

Also, the galactic standing should also be about gains and losses- points should be awarded not just for 'the biggest' but also:

deduct points for lost systems / gain points for inflicting losses

deduct points for stronghold > fortified demotion / gain points for inflicting loss

deduct points for >10 systems lost (and thus loss of perks) / gain points for inflicting loss

(system gains via expansion are neutral and count as normal)

This rewards activity rather than pure size. It will encourage dynamism rather than coasting on pure bulk- and that actually doing higher powerplay activities (higher as in engaging in the strategic layer of UM or preventing UM at various points) has worth.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So if Winters takes down a Torval system, a Grom system every player gets 50 million for each system (so in this example 100 million per player).

A lot of attacks are going to be to at least some extent by multiple powers, even if it's just a random player doing a holohack or selling a few spare limpets while passing through - any thoughts on how to handle that?

(Presumably undermining a Fortified system would also get a copied payout for every Exploited system it caused to drop?)

So in PP2 terms, it would be like (for one cycle) being reduced in rank and losing the corresponding perks.

I'm not sure I like this bit, though - at current Acquisition rates, every power losing 10 systems a week would merely be "keeps the overall size stable", so it'd be a rare week where most people got to use their PP bonuses. Losing systems already reduces the number of places you can use those bonuses, which is probably incentive enough to an extent.

Larger powers would be in a funny poisition as having more territory being an issue- defence would be needed as 10 systems out of 1000 is harder to defend (and scout) rather than 10 in 100.

To an extent, though equally smaller powers have fewer targets so any UM against them can be more concentrated and "there are simply more of them" becomes a bigger problem.

 

[Rubbernuke]

A lot of attacks are going to be to at least some extent by multiple powers, even if it's just a random player doing a holohack or selling a few spare limpets while passing through - any thoughts on how to handle that?

(Presumably undermining a Fortified system would also get a copied payout for every Exploited system it caused to drop?)

Thats a good point! The danger is that if powers can go via collective means it will make power blocs even more useful than now, rather than teasing them apart. I suppose you could break down such attacks per power and the largest contribution gets the bounty, or that you could copy the mechanics of contested systems- once you go past a threshold the UM locks a power as being the recipient of the reward.

And again a great point regards rewards for attacking and losing fortified systems and dependencies- I would love a chain reaction where you get 50 for each - so for example Tortugas attack on Patreus weeks back that dropped 12 systems would result in 600 million each, lots of points for galactic standing and Dentons minions losing a % of perks. That sounds a fantastic reward and outcome for being brazen and ambitious.

I'm not sure I like this bit, though - at current Acquisition rates, every power losing 10 systems a week would merely be "keeps the overall size stable", so it'd be a rare week where most people got to use their PP bonuses. Losing systems already reduces the number of places you can use those bonuses, which is probably incentive enough to an extent.

Its really accepting that powers will always expand and making powers fight over what 'is'. Pledges will always expand, but its caring for what you build that should matter in PP IMO. Losing what you took should have some consequence thats materially painful.

To an extent, though equally smaller powers have fewer targets so any UM against them can be more concentrated and "there are simply more of them" becomes a bigger problem.

It does cut both ways, but its far easier to slip un-noticed around a lazier large power than a smaller one on guard, and is closer to what FD talked about I feel. Added to that you have penalties for front lines I think overal it would inject some life into things.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

The tactical decision of wanting to expand and get more prestige etc, balanced against the loss of the same if you overstretch and can't defend it would make it interesting. I'm very much for FDev prodding us towards going on the offensive, but this leaves us currently potentially being able to mindlessly keep on expanding into easy to acquire systems tgat other powers can't challenge due to distance. This sort of idea would push us more towards undermining which, personally, by nature of this being a competitive feature is where effort should be going.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The tactical decision of wanting to expand and get more prestige etc, balanced against the loss of the same if you overstretch and can't defend it would make it interesting. I'm very much for FDev prodding us towards going on the offensive, but this leaves us currently potentially being able to mindlessly keep on expanding into easy to acquire systems tgat other powers can't challenge due to distance. This sort of idea would push us more towards undermining which, personally, by nature of this being a competitive feature is where effort should be going.

This also dovetails into Vanguards where (what I assume) FD are going / intending- building more cohesive and focussed groups in game and supporting more group efforts inside the game. Having an open ended automatic group assault goal would benefit everyone really. It would be a combat CG for each power with a tangible reward that synergises many ED / PP gameplay loops.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Thats a good point! The danger is that if powers can go via collective means it will make power blocs even more useful than now, rather than teasing them apart. I suppose you could break down such attacks per power and the largest contribution gets the bounty, or that you could copy the mechanics of contested systems- once you go past a threshold the UM locks a power as being the recipient of the reward.

Or possibly split the reward down into proportion of the attackers?

Either way it would need to be transparent in the UI as to which Powers were doing the undermining to let players know whether it's worth their while joining in.

Its really accepting that powers will always expand and making powers fight over what 'is'. Pledges will always expand, but its caring for what you build that should matter in PP IMO. Losing what you took should have some consequence thats materially painful.

Given the average player/power group's attitude to anyone successfully undermining them, I'm really not sure it needs anything beyond the psychological impact of "you had this system and now you don't"

I'm thinking about mechanical penalties generating a "join the winning team" bias, where there's a big incentive to join powers which do have the strength to (over)secure their territory, because you get to use your bonuses sometimes, whereas if you join a small-by-player-count power you'll probably never actually get to use your bonuses (at least, not until the power gets so small it can't lose ten systems a week)

(Equally there probably is a case for allowing under-supported powers to be killed off and consolidated because a 6-way fight might work better than a 12-way one. But painful along the way...)

 

[Rubbernuke]

Or possibly split the reward down into proportion of the attackers?

Either way it would need to be transparent in the UI as to which Powers were doing the undermining to let players know whether it's worth their while joining in.

Indeed, thats why I was thinking about reuse of the 'locking' mechanic of contested systems- you can see who is in the 'lead' so to speak. But you could also quite easily do your suggestion too where a % is awarded based on effort. What I want to see is per power competition for that systems loss- so that you won't have ZYADA chipping in and collectively getting something out but only one actually taking the prize. So it rewards focussed ruthlessness.

Given the average player/power group's attitude to anyone successfully undermining them, I'm really not sure it needs anything beyond the psychological impact of "you had this system and now you don't"

I'm thinking about mechanical penalties generating a "join the winning team" bias, where there's a big incentive to join powers which do have the strength to (over)secure their territory, because you get to use your bonuses sometimes, whereas if you join a small-by-player-count power you'll probably never actually get to use your bonuses (at least, not until the power gets so small it can't lose ten systems a week)

(Equally there probably is a case for allowing under-supported powers to be killed off and consolidated because a 6-way fight might work better than a 12-way one. But painful along the way...)

Is that really true though? So far in PP2 the most agressive power has been The King[tm] savaging the hell out of another small power (Denton 'The Jelly' Patreus) who is part of a wider power block (ZYADA). The focus has largely been on expansion and being big, rather than powers slapping the hell out of each other and seeing that reflected in the score cards. Its a bit like a boxer being scored on footwork alone rather than punches landed, punches evaded etc.

Its why I went with a fixed number of systems rather than a total % of the power- as you grow, knocking off smaller chunks becomes easier in a game where 11 others will be doing the same all over you. Smaller powers do lack power but at the same time can focus better, at least in theory. In PP1 (although the mechanics were different) Archon Delaine was attacked by the Imperials all the time and it was only a PP bug that ruined his territory.

And thats just the 'high level' attack which is more challenging. The low level single system attack can happen all over and would be far easier to pull off.

In the end though, its trying to make fights over what you have the actual focus rather than taking and gardening. Its making the act and the resulting fallout (both good and bad) the aim that can be done without powers being removed- its the rise, fall and revenge unfolding.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Is that really true though? So far in PP2 the most agressive power has been The King[tm] savaging the hell out of another small power (Denton 'The Jelly' Patreus) who is part of a wider power block (ZYADA). The focus has largely been on expansion and being big, rather than powers slapping the hell out of each other and seeing that reflected in the score cards. Its a bit like a boxer being scored on footwork alone rather than punches landed, punches evaded etc.

Yes, certainly as things stand. But I'm thinking that if you get paid per successful attack, then it makes sense to direct that aggression towards Powers who don't have the strength to defend, which then potentially just gets increasingly bad for them.

- a power loses 10 systems to a focused attack (for a lot of the weaker powers, taking out the wrong fortified system is sufficient here)
- they now don't have their bonuses for the next cycle and it's obvious that they don't have the strength to defend and the focus on trying and failing to defend meant they weren't picking up the attack bonuses either
- so they get targeted even more the following week
- over time the more mercenary players may realise that if they want their bonuses to work (and get some nice 50M attack payouts on the other side) they need to go elsewhere
- repeat until they're completely dead
- leave the big ones (on current strength, not historic size) alone because they're not worth the effort

(Another related question: lose 10 or lose net 10? Lose net 10 could be avoided in most big powers by ignoring the undermining entirely and going for aggressive expansion. But lose 10 seems a bit weird to have loss of bonuses for if you gained 30 other systems the same week and still came out ahead overall - that's a successful week!)

In the end though, its trying to make fights over what you have the actual focus rather than taking and gardening. Its making the act and the resulting fallout (both good and bad) the aim that can be done without powers being removed- its the rise, fall and revenge unfolding.

Yes, definitely. My concern is that if there's a stick for losing a fight, it risks encouraging more over-reinforcement and less attacking, because the costs of losing a defensive battle are way higher than the costs of losing (or not starting) an offensive one. If you want a big brawl, people need to be (strongly) incentivised to ignore reinforcement because they're too busy attacking, not the other way round.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, certainly as things stand. But I'm thinking that if you get paid per successful attack, then it makes sense to direct that aggression towards Powers who don't have the strength to defend, which then potentially just gets increasingly bad for them.

- a power loses 10 systems to a focused attack (for a lot of the weaker powers, taking out the wrong fortified system is sufficient here)
- they now don't have their bonuses for the next cycle and it's obvious that they don't have the strength to defend and the focus on trying and failing to defend meant they weren't picking up the attack bonuses either
- so they get targeted even more the following week
- over time the more mercenary players may realise that if they want their bonuses to work (and get some nice 50M attack payouts on the other side) they need to go elsewhere
- repeat until they're completely dead
- leave the big ones (on current strength, not historic size) alone because they're not worth the effort

Yes, definitely. My concern is that if there's a stick for losing a fight, it risks encouraging more over-reinforcement and less attacking, because the costs of losing a defensive battle are way higher than the costs of losing (or not starting) an offensive one. If you want a big brawl, people need to be (strongly) incentivised to ignore reinforcement because they're too busy attacking, not the other way round.

That is true, its making sure that each power has the ability to have a 'breathing space' after the attack but also try and shape aggression at least subtly towards the upper ranked powers.

What I was thinking was perhaps linking this to another idea I had and drawing on the way ED ranks up players in combat- that the bonuses paid out scale to the ranking of the power attacked. So, if Aisling is attacked and loses a system, the attack bonus is far higher than say attacking Kaine. So each system Kaine loses is 5 million, while Aisling is 50- that way (on paper) the best payouts are for attacking Aisling.

Powers that also lost a % of perks might also have a 'grace' week of recovery maybe- so that in cycle 3 they are immune (c1 being attack, c2 being the loss of perks, c3 being immunity on restoration). This would be separate to the single system losses which would continue.

(Another related question: lose 10 or lose net 10? Lose net 10 could be avoided in most big powers by ignoring the undermining entirely and going for aggressive expansion. But lose 10 seems a bit weird to have loss of bonuses for if you gained 30 other systems the same week and still came out ahead overall - that's a successful week!)

Indeed, this is where it gets tricky. What I'm trying to visualise and establish is a mini version of collapse and a value to stability. Mindless expansion at the expense of other parts of your power should be 'bad'- taking and holding should have more value over expanding relentlessly.

What I imagined was one powers total attack (i.e. dropping systems of another) numbering 10 or more to drop the % perks of the victim. So you really have to focus hard to do that- this then has the benefit of making fortified systems suddenly hotspots (since you can drop many systems at once) or you can nibble away in isolated places (i.e. places recently expanded into and 'soft'.

Its why the 'score' should reflect losses of the fortified and stronghold status as well as dependent systems, and that they should also score higher for having them (the value) over simply expanding 30 tin shacks.

 

[BetaToaster]

I don't think temporarily gimping players' PP perks is a good game mechanic. Players need to individually grind for them, taking them away due to global circumstances outside their control would feel bad. And we'd end up with recommendations "pick powers X,Y or Z, they usually have their perks active" here on the forums.

Another problem is that for PP2, all systems are mostly the same. Especially with the colonization influx, there's just no reason to fight over virtually infinite resources. I'd look for ways to make systems more/less valuable depending on their population count, and ideally differentiate them depending on their economy (or other factors). The way mining systems are different because they allow massive merit generation is good, we'd need more system types to stand out like this.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't think temporarily gimping players' PP perks is a good game mechanic. Players need to individually grind for them, taking them away due to global circumstances outside their control would feel bad. And we'd end up with recommendations "pick powers X,Y or Z, they usually have their perks active" here on the forums.

Another problem is that for PP2, all systems are mostly the same. Especially with the colonization influx, there's just no reason to fight over virtually infinite resources. I'd look for ways to make systems more/less valuable depending on their population count, and ideally differentiate them depending on their economy (or other factors). The way mining systems are different because they allow massive merit generation is good, we'd need more system types to stand out like this.

I'm all for making systems worth fighting over, but as you say with TB its essentially pointless as its easier to acquire than take away. The other problem is you hit smaller powers since most of them live in really low population areas (like Antal and Delaine) and that these areas are also really poor systems generally. This is why I assume FD dropped that idea (they talked about it in a livestream) and made everything 'flat' instead (that is every system is just worth 1).

In the end you still have the problem that no one fights because the incentives are just not there, and that the larger powers remain in charge because no one can challenge them. In this situation, if systems did have extra value how would that change PP2 today? You'd still have no incentive to attack. I did think about making rares, engineer bases and other unique systems worth something (or offer discounts / special rates) but then thats unfair as the allocation benefits older, larger powers, or distributions that were not earnt via play (they'd only be suitable from a complete restart). You would also have players choosing powers based on those perks that most likely would never really change.

Also I'm reminded of the devs themselves saying that in the end, if a power fails it fails- there is only so far you can (or should) shield powers before players need to either defend them or not.

Players need to individually grind for them, taking them away due to global circumstances outside their control would feel bad

I can sort of understand this but then....being part of a power is also looking out for that power and actually getting involved in its wellbeing. While PP2 is much more decentralised than PP1 its still a massively distributed team game that relies on collective effort.

Taking away perks (or at least a % of them for one week) is brutal, but at the same time your power (after losing 10 systems or so) is failing. The bounty on the individual systems IMO should have a threshold where it leads to further problems as well as driving attacks between powers.

What I think is wrong about PP2 is that is a very passive system that has no real consequences in victory or defeat, and for a lot of people that makes it dull.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

The turmoil and (unfortunately) not fully implemented collapse mechanics of pp1.0 had a lot of potential. It meant expansions had to be intelligent. That said, I think gimping perks players receive would be pretty universally disliked, and so the better option, if Fdev were willing, would be the actual threat of actual collapse and the cascading lore implications.

Who fills the vacuum? Perfect opportunity for BGS groups to be able to shine and actually ascend to a major power (as was once believed to be possible) via a competitive CG for the largest bgs factions in the vacant space. This incentivizes squadrons and hopefully whatever vanguards brings.

That said, I support the general idea that PP 2.0 should value the victories and defeats and be less passive for the powers themselves.

 

[BetaToaster]

In the end you still have the problem that no one fights because the incentives are just not there, and that the larger powers remain in charge because no one can challenge them. In this situation, if systems did have extra value how would that change PP2 today? You'd still have no incentive to attack.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to say that differentiating systems would provide such an incentive.

But once you have an incentive for powers to fight at all, you also want a way to channel the fighting so that people actually fight each other over certain systems. Rather than, say, people picking 12 random backwater systems and dumping a bunch of merits into them close to the tick. Which would likely be the best strategy to "make that power lose 10 systems."

So i think coming up with a way to reward aggression and coming up with a way to channel that aggression into interesting "opposed" gameplay should go hand in hand.

I can sort of understand this but then....being part of a power is also looking out for that power and actually getting involved in its wellbeing. While PP2 is much more decentralised than PP1 its still a massively distributed team game that relies on collective effort.

Taking away perks (or at least a % of them for one week) is brutal, but at the same time your power (after losing 10 systems or so) is failing. The bounty on the individual systems IMO should have a threshold where it leads to further problems as well as driving attacks between powers.

The thing I'm worried about here is that a big chunk of the player base probably don't care about their Power's wellbeing, but are participating in PP2 only/mostly/initially for the perks (in particular weapon unlocks).
If you create a game mechanic that (via helpful forum advice) funnels all those players into the top 3 powers, then you (somewhat needlessly) created a massive imbalance is that likely to hurt the dedicated PP players the most. And telling the I-just-want-my-Prismatics crowd "you should give a damn about the actual PP2" isn't going to work, so you need to design so that this doesn't happen. Or you'll get a PP2 that on the large scale is as interesting as the recent Grom-Winters mining CG.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Absolutely. I didn't mean to say that differentiating systems would provide such an incentive.

But once you have an incentive for powers to fight at all, you also want a way to channel the fighting so that people actually fight each other over certain systems. Rather than, say, people picking 12 random backwater systems and dumping a bunch of merits into them close to the tick. Which would likely be the best strategy to "make that power lose 10 systems."

So i think coming up with a way to reward aggression and coming up with a way to channel that aggression into interesting "opposed" gameplay should go hand in hand.


The thing I'm worried about here is that a big chunk of the player base probably don't care about their Power's wellbeing, but are participating in PP2 only/mostly/initially for the perks (in particular weapon unlocks).
If you create a game mechanic that (via helpful forum advice) funnels all those players into the top 3 powers, then you (somewhat needlessly) created a massive imbalance is that likely to hurt the dedicated PP players the most. And telling the I-just-want-my-Prismatics crowd "you should give a damn about the actual PP2" isn't going to work, so you need to design so that this doesn't happen. Or you'll get a PP2 that on the large scale is as interesting as the recent Grom-Winters mining CG.

Its why I suggest a one / two punch approach, that gives randos an incentive to actually fight for the smaller guy- as CGs suggest people still like credits and if they flow for attacking large powers I think they'll take it. Do it enough and you then get a larger 'win'.

Its also trying to scale it in such a way that it mimics the old overhead curve where being large is more difficult to manage (but also do so in a decentralised system at the same time)- in this case its large powers that have to actually tend as many of the systems as possible otherwise they shed them (if defence (as it is now) is kept as it is).

But once you have an incentive for powers to fight at all, you also want a way to channel the fighting so that people actually fight each other over certain systems. Rather than, say, people picking 12 random backwater systems and dumping a bunch of merits into them close to the tick. Which would likely be the best strategy to "make that power lose 10 systems."

But thats an actual strategy though- one that actually reveals weaknesses a power has and should be exploited rather than other powers simply accepting they are there.

For large powers that attack surface area is much bigger, and if you have ten other powers with hungry randoms that will add up. With so many weak colony systems you really should have high turnover rather than slip into the 'gardening' larger powers generally see.

What I'm also trying to visualise is cons to having too many bonus pros- failiure should sting, rather than be ignored as you drown in other perks so you stop caring. As it stands the only thing that actually people care about is the bonuses- one big issue is making sure the bonus that is impacted is seen throughout every power- if not bonuses then logically only credits are left- now is that enough to feel a loss over if your money is taken away? Randoms won't care about owning 'system x' unless it brings them something tangible, and then you have to make something that can be distributed fairly across the bubble.

The ultimate problem is that ED is a game with no scarcity (so fighting over that mining colony is pointless if you just make another), the strategic points of weakness (fortified worlds) are too easy to defend and strongholds essentially being a wasted opportunity- every power should be trying to take these down. My only thought is that stronghold retreats have a bonus for the power that removes them... however this still gives large powers a theotretical advantage.

 

[Insane4un]

It's a very bad idea to remove or downgrade perks of other players in PP by something that they can't control. Even worse is that they wouldn't be able to win those points back by doing it solo. It would be better to instead introduce something new. Something like PP currency for activity to incentivize more active gameplay. There are so many possibilities if it would be done properly. Small example - what if you can buy premium synthesis on weapons as reward for your personal activity in PP by using said currency. Merits 2.0 as currency, that can be used for more than just perks and bonuses.

 

[Uthael]

To all 3 of you that I quoted; I'm not trying to counter what you said, just sharing my point of view. Do with that what you will in this discussion. Hope it helps.

I chose my Powerplay faction based on roleplay preferences. Imagine my disappointment as an Aisling Duval supporter when I found out that the majority of her supporters' reasons are either "easy prismatics" or "she looks nice".

(Another related question: lose 10 or lose net 10? Lose net 10 could be avoided in most big powers by ignoring the undermining entirely and going for aggressive expansion. But lose 10 seems a bit weird to have loss of bonuses for if you gained 30 other systems the same week and still came out ahead overall - that's a successful week!)

Indeed, this is where it gets tricky. What I'm trying to visualise and establish is a mini version of collapse and a value to stability. Mindless expansion at the expense of other parts of your power should be 'bad'- taking and holding should have more value over expanding relentlessly.

This is where we're at currently. With 35% merit penalty on reinforcing and 5% bonus on undermining/acquisition, it makes no sense to defend. If you opt for aggression, you literally get over 60% bonus. Big will get bigger, small will get smaller.

Many new players also just go for "least enemies" or "most powerful allies" and pick the current #1. Large Powers' playerbase can only get larger.
Also, nobody in their right mind would switch after getting their first module.

But once you have an incentive for powers to fight at all, you also want a way to channel the fighting so that people actually fight each other over certain systems. Rather than, say, people picking 12 random backwater systems and dumping a bunch of merits into them close to the tick. Which would likely be the best strategy to "make that power lose 10 systems."

I don't fight other players. I play in Open, but steer clear of combat. Especially PvP combat. As per Aisling's ethos, I earn my merits using "social" or "financial" ways. Also, will work my brain on how to keep doing the least risk - most reward. Even with the 100% refund perk. How are you supposed to fight one such as I? Earned over 500k merits in the last 7 days. 800k lifetime total, but still. Some people do it every week.

Another issue is that Colonization makes expansion trivial. Every player can colonize a system and earn merits by expanding into the last weeks fresh colonies. No need to interact with other powers at all. Big will get bigger, small will get smaller bigger, too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

To all 3 of you that I quoted; I'm not trying to counter what you said, just sharing my point of view. Do with that what you will in this discussion. Hope it helps.

I chose my Powerplay faction based on roleplay preferences. Imagine my disappointment as an Aisling Duval supporter when I found out that the majority of her supporters' reasons are either "easy prismatics" or "she looks nice".

The key is finding something that introduces weaknesses into large powers that are not as apparent in small ones. In this case more systems (might) equal more weakness as you have to be aware of sabotage over a wider area.

Just to note:

This is where we're at currently. With 35% merit penalty on reinforcing and 5% bonus on undermining/acquisition, it makes no sense to defend. If you opt for aggression, you literally get over 60% bonus. Big will get bigger, small will get smaller.

Many new players also just go for "least enemies" or "most powerful allies" and pick the current #1. Large Powers' playerbase can only get larger.
Also, nobody in their right mind would switch after getting their first module.

Right now (AFAIK) Delaine / Tortuga has taken of the most in one go with an attack on Patreus- both small powers with shared geography. Kaine has taken the most in one go with 50+ systems, another small power.

So far no large power (yet) has taken on a smaller one in that way. I understand your point though, its always been a conceptual threat. The issue is trying to passively weight actions so that you do not create stability.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

With 35% merit penalty on reinforcing and 5% bonus on undermining/acquisition, it makes no sense to defend.

This is only the case where the reinforcement activity and the undermining/acquisition activity have equivalent merit rates, though.

In a lot of cases, the reinforcement activity is considerably faster intrinsically, so losing 35% doesn't make it slower. There's no undermining equivalent to rares or exploration or bounty hunting or ship scans in the first place.

And so, despite this change having been introduced, the massive reinforcement:undermining bias is essentially unchanged. People have largely taken their -35% merits (no control point penalty, just personal merits) and carried on doing exactly what they were doing before.

Another issue is that Colonization makes expansion trivial

Definitely. Colonisation adds new systems considerably faster than Powers can take them. Without a specific incentive to attack another Power, if you want to grow it's always going to be much faster to do so through uncontested acquisitions.