Sorry if this has been covered but I have searched (Trigger warning snowflakes...I'm about to use CAPS) EVERYWHERE!!! I'm wondering on what criteria the superpowers are ranked each week. Not MY superpower rank, I'm talking about Hudson, Mahon, Grom, etc... What must happen for them to move up or down? Please give a brief explanation, or links if u can... Thank you in advance for any info you can provide... o7 fly dangerously cmdrs!!! Lord Commander HayDeeze...out!
Superpower weekly ranking...
- Thread starter LordHayDeeze
- Start date
-
- Tags
- begs powerplay rank superpower
It's complicated, and hasn't been 100% figured out yet (to my knowledge, but I'm a bit out of the loop at the moment). The various factors that are taken into consideration are fairly well-known, and I'll go over them below, but the exact mechanic is still elusive. So you won't get a straight-up formula from me.
Consider the ranking to have a certain "base" value for each power, which is then modified by a number of factors that can add to or subtract from this base value.
- The base value is assumed to be based on the number of controlled and exploited systems a power has. This explains why Mahon has had the most appearances in the #1 spot - he has far more than anyone else. But if it was just the base value, he'd always be #1, and he isn't.
- The successes and failures of preparation and expansion for a power are assumed to be major factors that modify the base value. This explains why a smaller power that has a couple of successful preparations and perhaps an expansion can rocket ahead of Mahon for a week, then drop down again the week after - They get a huge temporary boost, but their base value is still lower.
- Turmoil is assumed to be a major negative modifier to the base value. This explains why a huge power that's in turmoil can drop far lower than the base value should normally allow.
Using this, you can't predict the exact numbers powers will end up at, but you can get a pretty good idea about how the rankings will be affected. For example, is Mahon has no preparations or expansions in a week, but Hudson has 2 successful expansions and also prepared a system for next week, Hudson will probably jump ahead of Mahon next cycle. But if Mahon also had a couple of expansions or preparations, his higher base value would let him stay ahead of Hudson.
Hope this help.
Consider the ranking to have a certain "base" value for each power, which is then modified by a number of factors that can add to or subtract from this base value.
- The base value is assumed to be based on the number of controlled and exploited systems a power has. This explains why Mahon has had the most appearances in the #1 spot - he has far more than anyone else. But if it was just the base value, he'd always be #1, and he isn't.
- The successes and failures of preparation and expansion for a power are assumed to be major factors that modify the base value. This explains why a smaller power that has a couple of successful preparations and perhaps an expansion can rocket ahead of Mahon for a week, then drop down again the week after - They get a huge temporary boost, but their base value is still lower.
- Turmoil is assumed to be a major negative modifier to the base value. This explains why a huge power that's in turmoil can drop far lower than the base value should normally allow.
Using this, you can't predict the exact numbers powers will end up at, but you can get a pretty good idea about how the rankings will be affected. For example, is Mahon has no preparations or expansions in a week, but Hudson has 2 successful expansions and also prepared a system for next week, Hudson will probably jump ahead of Mahon next cycle. But if Mahon also had a couple of expansions or preparations, his higher base value would let him stay ahead of Hudson.
Hope this help.
Thank you for that explanation. I figured it was a multitude of different factors. I just feel like frontier would not have put so much effort into building the background simulation if it were not designed for us to use it. In short, I guess what I'm trying to do is find various other ways to play to keep the game interesting while awaiting the chapter 4 update on PS4 I was just going to play around and try to figure out a little more about the bgs because they mentioned in the live stream that the new scenarios will also be tied into the bgs
And as a semantic note: "Hudson, Mahon, Grom, etc..." are not "Superpowers", they are "Powers". The Superpowers are the Federation, Empire and Alliance.
Galactic politics is essentially split on three levels.
Bottom level are the minor factions. "People's Anlave for Equality", "Blood Brothers from Alrai", that sort of thing. The minor faction that has the largest influence in a system "controls" that system - they own the largest space station and the police force that patrols the empty space in that system. Each minor faction has an "allegiance", to one of the three Superpowers or to no Superpower (Independent).
Top level politics is the Superpowers. However, their influence and control over the galaxy is operated through the minor factions that are affiliated with them. Thus, the Federation only "controls" those star systems where a Federation-aligned minor faction is in control.
Wedged in between these two levels are the Powers. Powers (and the gameplay involved with them, known as "PowerPlay") were added to the game when people complained that they had no way to formally align themselves in-game to either a minor power or a superpower; you can formally join or "pledge" to a Power. Powers are affiliated with a Superpower (or not, as Independent) but their alignment has very little bearing on their behaviour, except that actually destroying ships that belong to a rival Power of the same alignment is discouraged. Powers are also almost entirely disconnected from the minor factions too, except in this one respect: certain government types (democracy, communist, anarchy, etc) are more beneficial to each Power, so PowerPlayers do tend to actively force revolutions and elections to put "friendly" governments in power in the systems within their spheres of control.
One discrepancy widely noted between Superpowers, Powers and minor factions is this: the Powers care about the government type of the minor factions within their spheres, but they don't care nearly as much for the alignment within their spheres. Hudson, for example, actually likes to exploit Patronages and Feudals - neither of which ever occur with Federation alignment. So you have the bizaare situation where people working for Federation President Hudson are often actively trying to overthrow Federation star systems (which are usually Democracy, Corporate or Confederacy) and install Independent, Alliance or Imperial governments in their place. Likewise, Aisling supporters tend to overthrow Imperial-aligned systems in favour of Communist and Cooperative governments.
Galactic politics is essentially split on three levels.
Bottom level are the minor factions. "People's Anlave for Equality", "Blood Brothers from Alrai", that sort of thing. The minor faction that has the largest influence in a system "controls" that system - they own the largest space station and the police force that patrols the empty space in that system. Each minor faction has an "allegiance", to one of the three Superpowers or to no Superpower (Independent).
Top level politics is the Superpowers. However, their influence and control over the galaxy is operated through the minor factions that are affiliated with them. Thus, the Federation only "controls" those star systems where a Federation-aligned minor faction is in control.
Wedged in between these two levels are the Powers. Powers (and the gameplay involved with them, known as "PowerPlay") were added to the game when people complained that they had no way to formally align themselves in-game to either a minor power or a superpower; you can formally join or "pledge" to a Power. Powers are affiliated with a Superpower (or not, as Independent) but their alignment has very little bearing on their behaviour, except that actually destroying ships that belong to a rival Power of the same alignment is discouraged. Powers are also almost entirely disconnected from the minor factions too, except in this one respect: certain government types (democracy, communist, anarchy, etc) are more beneficial to each Power, so PowerPlayers do tend to actively force revolutions and elections to put "friendly" governments in power in the systems within their spheres of control.
One discrepancy widely noted between Superpowers, Powers and minor factions is this: the Powers care about the government type of the minor factions within their spheres, but they don't care nearly as much for the alignment within their spheres. Hudson, for example, actually likes to exploit Patronages and Feudals - neither of which ever occur with Federation alignment. So you have the bizaare situation where people working for Federation President Hudson are often actively trying to overthrow Federation star systems (which are usually Democracy, Corporate or Confederacy) and install Independent, Alliance or Imperial governments in their place. Likewise, Aisling supporters tend to overthrow Imperial-aligned systems in favour of Communist and Cooperative governments.
Carradin has the best answer so far.
Even the folks who closely follow PowerPlay and run large organised groups and have to plan strategy, they don't quite know.
Certainly there have been some disastrous miscalculations over the years.
Originally PowerPlay was designed to reward expansion, and that gets reflected in weekly rankings.
But the overall CC economy is the major factor in a Power's stability and longevity.
The bubble is kinda tight now and CC profitable systems are very few.
PowerPlay has kinda degenerated into maintaining stasis and trying to add loss making systems to your opponents.
You should try to distinguish between the BGS and PowerPlay.
They do intersect, but not very much. The BGS is everywhere and is everything.
PowerPlay is an overlay, that has minimal interaction with the BGS. (and the amount of interaction has been reduced several times over the years).
For example - one PowerPlay activity is killing enemy ships, in enemy Control Systems.
But that killing used to count as murder, which has a powerful negative effect on whoever is the local BGS government for that system.
So what would happen is that the government of Control Systems would be extremely volatile. It was very hard on Player Groups who became Control Systems.
So that was nerfed out and the BGS stabilised.
For me I would prefer MORE integration between PP and the BGS, but implemented in smarter, more nuanced ways.
One serious bit of advice though -
If you are getting into PowerPlay - you really need to find your Player Groups and leadership.
If you go around just "doing PowerPlay stuff" you can actually work against the best interests of your Power, you need to be co-ordinated.
Especially if you are at all effective.
[video=youtube;oqZOfbCHTCA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZOfbCHTCA[/video]
Even the folks who closely follow PowerPlay and run large organised groups and have to plan strategy, they don't quite know.
Certainly there have been some disastrous miscalculations over the years.
Originally PowerPlay was designed to reward expansion, and that gets reflected in weekly rankings.
But the overall CC economy is the major factor in a Power's stability and longevity.
The bubble is kinda tight now and CC profitable systems are very few.
PowerPlay has kinda degenerated into maintaining stasis and trying to add loss making systems to your opponents.
You should try to distinguish between the BGS and PowerPlay.
They do intersect, but not very much. The BGS is everywhere and is everything.
PowerPlay is an overlay, that has minimal interaction with the BGS. (and the amount of interaction has been reduced several times over the years).
For example - one PowerPlay activity is killing enemy ships, in enemy Control Systems.
But that killing used to count as murder, which has a powerful negative effect on whoever is the local BGS government for that system.
So what would happen is that the government of Control Systems would be extremely volatile. It was very hard on Player Groups who became Control Systems.
So that was nerfed out and the BGS stabilised.
For me I would prefer MORE integration between PP and the BGS, but implemented in smarter, more nuanced ways.
One serious bit of advice though -
If you are getting into PowerPlay - you really need to find your Player Groups and leadership.
If you go around just "doing PowerPlay stuff" you can actually work against the best interests of your Power, you need to be co-ordinated.
Especially if you are at all effective.
[video=youtube;oqZOfbCHTCA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZOfbCHTCA[/video]
Last edited: