Powerplay rewards
- Thread starter G.T
- Start date
No official words regarding specific changes. Only vague references to FD always keeping an eye on balance.
I believe you're exactly right.
750 Anaconda kills in Powerplay gives you 750 merits. Reward=$500,000 at week's end. That's 666 credits per anaconda.
Killing only 7 anaconda's in a regular conflict zone also nets you $500,000. And it only takes about an hour.
What's more frustrating is that killing a "mostly harmless" Adder in an opposing system rewards you with 15 merits. You'd could kill 15 Anacondas in an invasion area to reap the same reward.
It's all backwards. Undermining is the least important activity for a Power, but is grossly over-rewarded. Expanding, controlling and preparing are the overwhelmingly more advantageous activities for the good of a Power but the rewards are paltry.
The system punishes you for role-playing well.
I believe you're exactly right.
750 Anaconda kills in Powerplay gives you 750 merits. Reward=$500,000 at week's end. That's 666 credits per anaconda.
Killing only 7 anaconda's in a regular conflict zone also nets you $500,000. And it only takes about an hour.
What's more frustrating is that killing a "mostly harmless" Adder in an opposing system rewards you with 15 merits. You'd could kill 15 Anacondas in an invasion area to reap the same reward.
It's all backwards. Undermining is the least important activity for a Power, but is grossly over-rewarded. Expanding, controlling and preparing are the overwhelmingly more advantageous activities for the good of a Power but the rewards are paltry.
The system punishes you for role-playing well.
Last edited:
I'd like to add that it's overwhelmingly likely FD made this decision because of their often-stated concern that Powers expand too rapidly and lead to deadlock, especially because Powers cannot directly invade each other.
The clear answer to this problem is not to make the process of expanding, controlling and preparing so tedious and unrewarding to the player that most of them don't want to do it--that defeats the entire point of Powerplay.
They could solve the imbalance in an instant by keeping weekly credit reward levels the same, raising the number of merits earned per destroyed enemy ship to 20, and multiplying the trigger needed to cause an event (prepare, expand, or control) by 30.
What will happen instantly is a flood of undermining players will rush back into the core activites of Powerplay due to balanced rewards. However, this flood of new players--preppers, expanders, and controllers--will be offset by the increase in the trigger required to make each of these activities successful.
INSTANT balance, fair merit rewards, no change in expansion rates, and almost identical levels of time played for credits earned.
The clear answer to this problem is not to make the process of expanding, controlling and preparing so tedious and unrewarding to the player that most of them don't want to do it--that defeats the entire point of Powerplay.
They could solve the imbalance in an instant by keeping weekly credit reward levels the same, raising the number of merits earned per destroyed enemy ship to 20, and multiplying the trigger needed to cause an event (prepare, expand, or control) by 30.
What will happen instantly is a flood of undermining players will rush back into the core activites of Powerplay due to balanced rewards. However, this flood of new players--preppers, expanders, and controllers--will be offset by the increase in the trigger required to make each of these activities successful.
INSTANT balance, fair merit rewards, no change in expansion rates, and almost identical levels of time played for credits earned.
Last edited:
Yes, exactly. I'd be interested to hear if anyone inks the rewards are anywhere near right or balanced at the moment, I just can't see how they are.
Every power is different in their ethos and some will have an easier time getting their merits due to this. Having a lot of money helps too. There's a lot that can be said about balance but it's already been stated by FDev that they're not interested in balancing the powers completely. As for undermining, it takes a lot of time compared to some of the powers who can easily accrue the same amount of merits in a fraction of the time doing prep or expansion work. In that case I would actually disagree with the previous posters. Yes, the combat ethos powers do require a bit of a grind for expansions but prep is pretty much the same (easy merits if you have money).
On a side but related note, in my opinion it is way too easy for some powers to expand. We were promised 20 total powers and at the current rate of growth I'm wondering what space is going to be left for these 10 other groups, especially after overhead changes. Seems almost impossible for a power to lose systems once they've taken it unless the system is surrounded by enemy powers and/or they destroy themselves from the inside.
On a side but related note, in my opinion it is way too easy for some powers to expand. We were promised 20 total powers and at the current rate of growth I'm wondering what space is going to be left for these 10 other groups, especially after overhead changes. Seems almost impossible for a power to lose systems once they've taken it unless the system is surrounded by enemy powers and/or they destroy themselves from the inside.
Last edited:
You don't like the prismatic shield generator? I heard it's great for larger ships (python/conda) and tradeships. It's also green. What don't you like about it?
Hi.
The current system of "let's vote which 10 systems we do nothing about" is no good.
What is wrong:
1) People nominate systems at random, no mastermind behind to do a coherent plan.
2) People do the things they get the greatest rewards from (as stated, undermining), not the things that advance their power's goals.
So, what could solve this? We need dictatorship! .. Well maybe with a hint of democracy. Say, instead of directly nominating systems, let's nominate an admiral for a week or two at a time
.. This admiral then selects the systems to expand to and the other goals for the week. He then allocates x-number of CMDRs for each task. These tasks are then randomly given as missions for the pledged commanders. Not totally randomly, maybe your present location (or belonging to a group) can affect the process.
Now, the CMDRs have their missions for the week, and only completing those missions will give them merits (and possibly credits?). No more random flailing all over the galaxy. PowerPlay would become a whole lot more interesting for me atleast.
The current system of "let's vote which 10 systems we do nothing about" is no good.
What is wrong:
1) People nominate systems at random, no mastermind behind to do a coherent plan.
2) People do the things they get the greatest rewards from (as stated, undermining), not the things that advance their power's goals.
So, what could solve this? We need dictatorship! .. Well maybe with a hint of democracy. Say, instead of directly nominating systems, let's nominate an admiral for a week or two at a time
.. This admiral then selects the systems to expand to and the other goals for the week. He then allocates x-number of CMDRs for each task. These tasks are then randomly given as missions for the pledged commanders. Not totally randomly, maybe your present location (or belonging to a group) can affect the process.Now, the CMDRs have their missions for the week, and only completing those missions will give them merits (and possibly credits?). No more random flailing all over the galaxy. PowerPlay would become a whole lot more interesting for me atleast.
But...But Cmdr.. You are not supposed to do these things for money, you do the se things because of sincere conviction, you know "the Force" and all that jazz..
Cheers Cmdr's
I sense the sarcasm! Surprised if people really do buy into the minor factions, the majority of people are just after the cash like me. I just don't see why you can't have the due credits in addition to assisting a faction.