The Dangerous Games: The Rise to Power!

Top 5 groups that qualify for the final "Rise to Power" event are (in no perticular order)...

Mercs of Mikunn [MoM]
Communism Interstellar [CI]
Social Eleu Progressive Party [SEPP]
Interstellar Communist Union [ICU] (different group to the one above)
Alliance Elite Diplomatic Corp [AEDC]

If anyone feels they're group might have been missed for whatever reason and would like me to check the list and confirm they are not top 5, then let me know ASAP.

Otherwise, it's wildcard entries which will be closing shortly.

So basically The Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
No, but I would support a Communist faction that would work towards a Communist Power, because I want to see variety in the galaxy.

Not pseudo-alliance Mk II

So to be clear: Communism Interstellar is NOT proposing a Communist Power?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



So Alliance Mk II, right

I guess I'll support Interstellar Communist Union instead

If you want to support a purely communist power then yes you should support our comrades in the ICU. The Border Coalition, if it was lucky enough to become a power, would be communist supporting but not pure communist. One of the current three partners is however sat in the midst of a Communist bubble of systems which we support and maintain
 
Cool, well that's reassuring.

Apologies if I've come off as aggressive, I don't think you've presented yourself dishonestly. When I say

it's dishonest

I mean, it WOULD BE dishonest to have the in-game description be purely for "Communism Interstellar". I'm not saying you HAVE been dishonest already

Again, apologies if my desire for clarity is interpreted as aggression

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I thought he was talking about Mahon.

It could apply to any male faction leader other than Archon probably. I doubt Hudson came from a non-privileged background given the nature of the Federation, Patreus is aristocracy, Li is a dynastic CEO, Antal inherited it from his father... not sure on Mahon
 

Ozric

Volunteer Moderator
So basically The Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea

Damnit... I set that joke up on the livestream last Thursday and wasn't allowed to write the punchline... and now here it is again... tempting me... [sulk]
 
I think Trust-fund boy is a reference to Antal, or maybe Li Yong Rui
No, it's a reference to Delaine.

Nothing in the Galnet flavour text suggests that a 15 year old with a trust fund can't beat a man to death because mummy and daddy cut his allowance to $500 a day. It's the blond dreadz that do it for me, along with Sandwich Ma(ho)n and Pony Princess. The characterisation and general flavour of the power characters leaves a lot to be desired.

If it annoys you. Alexander, so be it. It wasn't my orignal intent, but it's fun. The intended criticism, however, is that the whole powerplay-character-driven-approach is, to my mind, nonsense. I appreciate that the devs needed to give some information to hang the mechanics on. I just wish it hadn't been written so badly. In my opinion, the powers should emerge, first and foremost, from the way of doing things that the players in question work. I mean, you're a Delaine pledge. Is he really the kind of hero you want to get behind? Or is he, perhaps, terribly easy to mock because he's more wooden than Roger Moore?
 
No, it's a reference to Delaine.

Nothing in the Galnet flavour text suggests that a 15 year old with a trust fund can't beat a man to death because mummy and daddy cut his allowance to $500 a day. It's the blond dreadz that do it for me, along with Sandwich Ma(ho)n and Pony Princess. The characterisation and general flavour of the power characters leaves a lot to be desired.

If it annoys you. Alexander, so be it. It wasn't my orignal intent, but it's fun. The intended criticism, however, is that the whole powerplay-character-driven-approach is, to my mind, nonsense. I appreciate that the devs needed to give some information to hang the mechanics on. I just wish it hadn't been written so badly. In my opinion, the powers should emerge, first and foremost, from the way of doing things that the players in question work. I mean, you're a Delaine pledge. Is he really the kind of hero you want to get behind? Or is he, perhaps, terribly easy to mock because he's more wooden than Roger Moore?

He's wooden because he was set up as the typical 'bad guy'. FDev has had no interest in doing anything with the character, and I suspect they had no idea he would still be around as a power. However, FDev was never going to allow players to choose lore for any of them (major powers) - and I don't really see how they could. FDev can't react/change that stuff cycle to cycle based on what the players decide to do, they simply don't move that quickly, at least for Power Play.
 

Zac Antonaci

Head of Communications
Frontier
OK,

Seems to be a little confusion on a few parts here. So I just want to clarify things here.

We have said that the factions will be added as a power but we have not stated where that space would be. Only that it will be considerate of the other powers and it is likely to result in a new part of space being carved out.

I would also like to add that all the groups in the top 5 are working for their individual group. Anyone that wins will have their group and not all their factions made into a power. Although we obvioulsy actively encourage cross group support and colaboration is good.

For example with Walt and Jane, they can represent themselves and allies can join and support, in the same way everyone can support their group. But if they wish for the Boarder coalition to be the power then one of the groups would need to step down (as would the Hussars if they are also planning on representing as the coalition).

The reason we did not allow them to enter as a boarder coalition is because it would not be fair to have three groups growing three factions and then adding their scores together. They would need to earn that right with one single faction. Which they have done twice (and nearly a third).

Hope that clarifies a few bits. Great to see the excitment and the group politics will never run smoothly but good to see groups getting involved and discussing.
 
I'm not seeing the connection, all we have on Mahon is that he's a career politician/civil servant, whereas the other two's lore seems to point towards 'trust fund' dynasty types.

More so because if Communist Interstellar are near Hudson and Winters, they would also be near Mahon.
Delaine isn't near Communist Interstellar from what I can tell, nether is Sirius or Antal.

But seemingly Delaine had a trust fund, payable in slaves I presume :)
 
He's wooden because he was set up as the typical 'bad guy'. FDev has had no interest in doing anything with the character, and I suspect they had no idea he would still be around as a power. However, FDev was never going to allow players to choose lore for any of them (major powers) - and I don't really see how they could. FDev can't react/change that stuff cycle to cycle based on what the players decide to do, they simply don't move that quickly, at least for Power Play.

As not to derail the thread, but Archon is the most 'pure' of all the PP factions: he runs a meritocracy, where your life is based on how well you do- survival of the fittest. In this respect the characters are very well rounded, and hopefully will get more official lore written about them when the next power is selected. The five contenders are very interesting, and I look forward to seeing what they turn out like.
 

Goose4291

Banned
No, it's a reference to Delaine.

Nothing in the Galnet flavour text suggests that a 15 year old with a trust fund can't beat a man to death because mummy and daddy cut his allowance to $500 a day. It's the blond dreadz that do it for me, along with Sandwich Ma(ho)n and Pony Princess. The characterisation and general flavour of the power characters leaves a lot to be desired.

If it annoys you. Alexander, so be it. It wasn't my orignal intent, but it's fun. The intended criticism, however, is that the whole powerplay-character-driven-approach is, to my mind, nonsense. I appreciate that the devs needed to give some information to hang the mechanics on. I just wish it hadn't been written so badly. In my opinion, the powers should emerge, first and foremost, from the way of doing things that the players in question work. I mean, you're a Delaine pledge. Is he really the kind of hero you want to get behind? Or is he, perhaps, terribly easy to mock because he's more wooden than Roger Moore?

Okay, sorry. But I just don't see it (from a lore perspective). I run the risk of being accused of being as thick as two short planks, but can you explain why Delaine could be regarded as a trust fund kid?
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
OK,

Seems to be a little confusion on a few parts here. So I just want to clarify things here.

We have said that the factions will be added as a power but we have not stated where that space would be. Only that it will be considerate of the other powers and it is likely to result in a new part of space being carved out.

I would also like to add that all the groups in the top 5 are working for their individual group. Anyone that wins will have their group and not all their factions made into a power. Although we obvioulsy actively encourage cross group support and colaboration is good.

For example with Walt and Jane, they can represent themselves and allies can join and support, in the same way everyone can support their group. But if they wish for the Boarder coalition to be the power then one of the groups would need to step down (as would the Hussars if they are also planning on representing as the coalition).

The reason we did not allow them to enter as a boarder coalition is because it would not be fair to have three groups growing three factions and then adding their scores together. They would need to earn that right with one single faction. Which they have done twice (and nearly a third).

Hope that clarifies a few bits. Great to see the excitement and the group politics will never run smoothly but good to see groups getting involved and discussing.

Not all of our group is online, but it is clear that one or other of us will have to withdraw from the Dangerous games. We have unbreakable agreement that we were competing on behalf of the border coalition and would represent the coalition if we won. This is why we wanted to make a joint application in the first place. Clearly we will need to talk about this internally but on the face of it it looks cleaner if we withdraw since this also avoids the risk of dividing the communist support. I will confirm once I have consulted with enough comrades.
 
Back
Top Bottom