Powerplay SUGGESTION: Changes to BGS that affects PP from govt type of faction to allegiance.

[CMDR_Brantford of FLC]

Of all the changes to Powerplay that Sandro proposed last yr at the Forums, the one about changing it so that all govt types would help your Powerplay BGS (for getting half fortification triggers) as long as they were aligned with your Power, I didnt like at first. I thought it would make it far too easy to get those triggers.

I've re-thought it though... .on the other hand.. it would certainly reduce weaponized expansions if the other Power had to depend on factions pledged to them. (for example, Zemina Torval.. who was turned into a zombie by the Empire to attack WInters after her player base left.. because she expands by corps and our strength is corp govt factions.. would need to use Empire factions to get decent triggers... rather then just be able to use corp govts to plop hard to oppose expansions in Winters bubbles.

It would also result in a lot of those player BGS factions who aren't the currently preferred govt type of the power to not have to do gymnastics or negotiations or wars with those in PP trying to install favored govt types for half fortification triggers.

 

[Jane Turner]

it would remove most of the tensions between PP and BGS groups too - though that tension adds a level to the game in terms of diplomacy, I would really welcome that change

 

[Azreh Helas]

It would make the two modes more intimate with eachother. If it changes to preferred superpower preferred government types could give another type of bonus instead.

 

[John J. Aubrey]

While I sure like the idea, and would like to see it implemented (Feudal and Patronage governments favorable to the President of the Federation is just silly), I fear it would be impossible to pull off - unless a complete revamp of PP was proposed and all started off again with some sort of clean slate. I doubt we would ever see anything like that.

 

[Kissamies]

Our PMF is a co-op in LYR territory so I'd love this. However, what happens if a faction is supported by multiple squadrons with different allegiances? I'm not sure if it's possible to have multiple squadrons on a faction, but I assume so.

 

[Azreh Helas]

Our PMF is a co-op in LYR territory so I'd love this. However, what happens if a faction is supported by multiple squadrons with different allegiances? I'm not sure if it's possible to have multiple squadrons on a faction, but I assume so.

It is, currently the FLC pmf has 2 different squadrons. Luckily we control both. I guess that would be more of a problem for independent factions.

 

[CMDR_Brantford of FLC]

While I sure like the idea, and would like to see it implemented (Feudal and Patronage governments favorable to the President of the Federation is just silly), I fear it would be impossible to pull off - unless a complete revamp of PP was proposed and all started off again with some sort of clean slate. I doubt we would ever see anything like that.

If Sandro suggested it.. I presume he thought it wouldn't be impossible to pull off

 

[XanderVekk]

Please implement ALL of Sandro's suggestions thanks

 

[XanderVekk]

it would remove most of the tensions between PP and BGS groups too - though that tension adds a level to the game in terms of diplomacy, I would really welcome that change

The tension is ridiculous because someone at FDEV decided to make Hudson strong against Feudal and Patronage types, none of which are in the Federation.

Hudson currently exploits about 900 systems in the Fed bubble, that means about 500 of them had to be forcibly switched to non-Federation for Hudson to defend their space and keep a buffer.

This is garbage. You have people pointing to the Federation dropping below 5,000 systems. There it is, we should be at around 5500 but the game design is so MISERABLE bad there.

I don't blame Hudson or FRC, they are just playing the game and doing great with the horrible rules they were given. I don't envy the task their BGS team has every time they log in.

 

[Darty]

Funny how you only support this idea after you've modified it so it both dumb downs the game (removing ethos from superpowers entirely instead of augmenting them) and benefits you while hurting your allies and enemies alike. (what do you think is going to happen to hudson or AD if this silly idea gets implemented. suddenly ALL of their bgs gets flipped so it hurts them. What utter garbage.)

Unless you mean to tell me you intend to go through your entire bubble and flip every corporate to a non-corporate fed faction, which is also just silly.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I like the idea, however as an agent of chaos I'd love to wed the trigger status to states. It would then better reflect support if everyone is happy and normal, but also allows wars and misery to actually mean something too. So just as you can UM, systems could also be attacked at the BGS level.

The bubble would be on fire, but it would then give the BGS a shove out of its 'everything is lovely pass the scones and tea' civil liberty plague.

 

[Viajero]

The more certain BGS features influence PP the better IMO.

I would also add to the plate the economic state and security state sliders influencing PP thresholds along with government types. The more to the right in the slider for each of those the larger the impact of the government type and viceversa, with default thresholds at the middle “no state” slider position. That way states would actually be meaningful and players can also use BGS to optimise or hinder PP gameplay.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

The purpose of the ethos override was to help correct the conflict between the Exploitation Impact that boosts Influence for Superpower aligned Minor Factions if Powers have Government types that are not part of their Superpower. Regardless, it is logical and how it should have always been and will help with a number of issues between Powers & PMFs as has been stated.

Also, for the record, Torval's Minor Faction setup is a nightmare. We Expand via Corporations, sure, but we Fortify via Dictatorships, Feudal, Cooperation, & Communists. Thus, we either have to flip everything twice, or accept the penalty of unfavourable triggers and just try to override it by doing twice the work of just about everyone else.

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[Bashy81]

If Sandro's proposal was implemented in full, it would also mean only control systems affect the fortification/undermine triggers, instead of control system and all the exploited systems. This reduces the PP 'interest' in systems by a large order of magnitude. It would increase the dynamism of powerplay system control&loss, reduce the extent of uneven contest and resentment between PP and (purely-)BGS groups while intensifying the relevance in fewer systems, and mean overall that PP is more about PP, BGS attacks in PP being a valid not insidious thing, and generally being an enormously positive thing for Powerplay and the wider playergroup community in general.
The interplay between those Sandro proposals impressed me immensely and was by far the best thing ive seen come out of FDEV in my time in ED, and frankly was something I never thought them capable of.
If only theyd give it a try!

 

[XanderVekk]

I like the idea, however as an agent of chaos I'd love to wed the trigger status to states. It would then better reflect support if everyone is happy and normal, but also allows wars and misery to actually mean something too. So just as you can UM, systems could also be attacked at the BGS level.

The bubble would be on fire, but it would then give the BGS a shove out of its 'everything is lovely pass the scones and tea' civil liberty plague.

Of course we would need to have unhappy people somewhere in the universe for this to work.

I mean, it happens, but not as often as it should.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Of course we would need to have unhappy people somewhere in the universe for this to work.

I mean, it happens, but not as often as it should.

Powerplay could be the exact tool needed to bring more negative states.

 

[CMDR_Brantford of FLC]

If Sandro's proposal was implemented in full, it would also mean only control systems affect the fortification/undermine triggers, instead of control system and all the exploited systems. This reduces the PP 'interest' in systems by a large order of magnitude. It would increase the dynamism of powerplay system control&loss, reduce the extent of uneven contest and resentment between PP and (purely-)BGS groups while intensifying the relevance in fewer systems, and mean overall that PP is more about PP, BGS attacks in PP being a valid not insidious thing, and generally being an enormously positive thing for Powerplay and the wider playergroup community in general.
The interplay between those Sandro proposals impressed me immensely and was by far the best thing ive seen come out of FDEV in my time in ED, and frankly was something I never thought them capable of.
If only theyd give it a try!

I'll have to re-read that proposal of Sandros's again... but maybe you can tell me - how would the half fortification triggers work if the control systems only affect the fort triggers?
(Currently you roughly need 50%+1 of all exploited systems within the control system's bubble to be controlled by BGS factions of your preferred govt type)

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'll have to re-read that proposal of Sandros's again... but maybe you can tell me - how would the half fortification triggers work if the control systems only affect the fort triggers?
(Currently you roughly need 50%+1 of all exploited systems within the control system's bubble to be controlled by BGS factions of your preferred govt type)

I don't think it got into that detail (or I could be misremembering), but its an interesting point. It might be that it indeed comes down to who controls that system- which is rough if you don't have a favourable gov there and have to push boulders up mountains in busy control systems, or a PMF is there.

As an alternative alternative what about having an instillation of some sort that acts as a powers 'base' there? If its run by an aligned faction then the fort trigger is halved, and if its not then its normal? If its in a war for control then its trigger is the highest maybe. This approach would separate out the BGS from PP a bit more but keep that granularity of system combat.

 

[Justinian Octavius]

Imho Powerplay should move away from economic turmoil to per system turmoil, it would solve a lot of problems. Regarding Ethos just being in the Control System, iirc, it was literally just checked in the Control System & if it matched either Government or Superpower then Trigger Reduction applied. Worth remembering though that systems could still be Undermined even if Fortified to 100% if Undermined value was 100% more than Fortification value (iirc).

CMDR Justinian Octavius

 

[CMDR_Brantford of FLC]

Imho Powerplay should move away from economic turmoil to per system turmoil, it would solve a lot of problems. Regarding Ethos just being in the Control System, iirc, it was literally just checked in the Control System & if it matched either Government or Superpower then Trigger Reduction applied. Worth remembering though that systems could still be Undermined even if Fortified to 100% if Undermined value was 100% more than Fortification value (iirc).

CMDR Justinian Octavius

The possibility of being able to UM system if it was 100% more is also a change to Powerplay worth considering. It would make even positive CC powers vulnerable to turmoil with a determined enemy. ..And if that's there.. that removes the need to have weaponized expansion systems to reduce CC (though 5C trying to "win" crappy CC systems would still need to be addressed).