I think that starts the process, but in the end its arbitrated by FD I thought using their telemetry.
Powerplay Prismatic Shields might be removed from the game soon
- Thread starter Levicarnus
- Start date
I think that starts the process, but in the end its arbitrated by FD I thought using their telemetry.
Sure, that's probably true. I mean some opposition from the inside, something what would split Alliance followers.
This is from the "Beta Powerplay Help" pdf file that FD provided us with one year ago:
So perhaps the Powers we assume should have been defeated are still around because they managed to expand into new systems despite their dire state?
I also recall something about the 10 Powers we have right now just being the start and eventually we will have around 20 Powers at any given time. Perhaps Powers can only be defeated once this Power "queue" is full and the weakest Power is trading places with the strongest minor faction?
Ahh. Well, realistically, how would someone garner support? In his tenure as Prime Minister, Edmund Mahon has shown himself to be extremely capable in not only expanding the Alliance (as in the Alliance has grown quite a bit in his tenure) but also in getting a huge amount of trade agreements in place with non-Alliance systems (all of the non-Alliance systems in Mahon space, which is 1,173 out of 1,344 systems).
While there are bound to be internal power struggles, it's going to be difficult to garner much support for opposing a Prime Minister that has been that successful.
Stop trolling, Aisling lost 6 out of 7 systems that were in turmoil. And i fully expect more undermining this cycle to make her loose more.
If Aisling is removed from the game, the next logical step is to remove ALD along with her imperial hammers. Works for me.
Last edited:
Not to mention the Dev time wasted on art assets, lore, story, in-game ship assets, time coding the in-game assets....
Specially that many other powers should have got the boot a long time ago... Wasn't Torval one of those?
Last edited:
Nah, Torval and Delaine are both tied on 1 month without an expansion.
Patreus has the record at 3 months.
Aisling ain't going anywhere just for having a devastating week.
The will of the Aisling Duval community remains strong. Morale remains high as we know we're fighting a dedicated 5C (it's not grinders, they respond to shifts in tactics in pushing unwanted preps and other changes in tactics the way grinders don't) that we will not let defeat us. I know hundreds of players who feel the way that I do.
Aisling Duval is our chosen leader and we'll stay with her to the end, which won' be soon.
Aisling Duval is our chosen leader and we'll stay with her to the end, which won' be soon.
Sandro, if you're reading this, CAN a power be defeated completely? Is it even possible? Because Patreus was at the bottom and without an expansion for months and hasn't been knocked off yet.
I mean, does a power have to completely lose ALL their control systems to even come close to being defeated?
Last edited:
I've suggested in the thread by Sandro on ways to reduce 5C affects, but as far as I can see the best approach would be to have the equivalent of a 'reputation' with your power. If you carry out activities to support fortifiication, to less than 100% fortified systems you gain rep, similiarly with actions that support expansion plans to system with a net positive contribution. However losing resources to 'pirates' or carrying out expansion activities on systems producing a net loss for your power would see a decrease in your 'reputation'. The 'reputation' could act as a multiplier to the impact your activities has on the overall fortification / expansion effects. Keep preping bad systems or losing cargo and your impact ends up being close to zero, keep prepping good ones and your impact has a greater impact overall (although your personal merit game would remain the same).
Because preparing a negative income system to prevent your competitors from hurting your economy with a weaponized expansion is bad, mmmkay? And preparing a positive income system that is so far away that it will get undermined but never fortified is good, mmmkay? You cannot automate the differentiation between what makes a good or a bad system, because there can be a multitude of reasons behind preparing and expanding a loss making system, just like there can be a multitude of reasons not to expand into a profit making system. If you think this can be automated, then you've not spent more than 30 seconds thinking of how this would be counter productive.
Want to get rid of sabotage preps? Remove the fast track preparation PowerPlay goods. This would move preparations to being nominations only, and this means that the only way sabotage systems make it through is because there are enough saboteurs in the power that they represent a significant portion of the player base. If preparations are nomination only, it is still possible to do weaponized preparations and it is still possible to prepare loss making systems for whatever reason, provided that there is enough support for it within the power. It would move the control of preparations out of the hands of a handful of extremely wealthy ne'er-do-wells and into the hands of the organized groups.
How many times has that happened in the history of powerplay? How many times has bad systems been prepped for other reasons? I know for the power I work within we've planned to prep 2 negative income systems in 40 weeks of PP. On the other side, at least 2 per week that are negative get 40k+ of nominations. If it is a gradual build / decay of rep and you occassionally do something on a micro level that is bad but on a macro level makes sense then the net impact is going to be the 5C's have reduced impact and the people working for the good of the power will get an increased impact, mmmkay?
I'm not trying to make it perfect, I'm trying to eliminate the total dross expansions I see week after week after week. I fail to see how this is counter productive, at worst in moves the sabotage attempts from bad -ive systems to bad +ive systems which will be the first to go when not fortified and undermined, so will act as the 'canary' lost systems saving the other valuable assets of a PP faction which would be much worse to lose.
I like that idea for significantly reducing the risk of sabotage preps, but it doesn't do anything about the impact of 5Cs people stocking up on fortification materials and then discarding them to their friends to undermine from within. Is there a way to limit the sabotage undermining along side the sabotage preps, as this appears to be as big an issue as the prep one (albeit the prep one is longer-term impact and the undermining one is felt more in the specific week).
Sad as I am, I've thought about it a lot, and also think it kinda works from a RP perspective too. The antics of the commander that keeps losing their cargo, will become a figure of fun, so won't hurt the overall faction. If people support giving up a system, even with the best intentions, then its going to hurt their rep marginally for a bit (the general population don't see the bigger picture, they just see their 'heros' standing by while a system slips out of control). It could also make for some interesting gameplay - taking cargo from the 'face' of a faction would be far more harmful to that faction, so might help spice up the action a little?
I think there are lots of individual scenarios and specifics that a system such as this wouldn't solve, but I think in the longer-term and over multiple weeks it will benefit those advancing the cause of a faction and limit the influence of those sabotaging from within. Is it perfect, no; is it something that seems relatively easy to implement and staying true to the 'flavour' of 2.1 planned with the idea of reps for mechanics and an overhaul of missions / standing with minor reps then, respectfully, yes.
Last edited: