The devs have been clearly attempting to encourage undermining lately, but I believe this has failed because of the two-tiered nature of the game. The problem, in simple terms, is this:
The game has two levels of competition: Power vs Power, and Power vs ALL Powers.
Undermining is Power vs Power, but the broader GAME is Power vs ALL powers. That's what the leaderboard says, and therefore that's what players care about.
Here's a simple example. Let's imagine you can invest a moderate amount, let's say 120k control points(enough to acquire 1 system), to take down a fortified system and make your enemy lose FIVE systems. On the surface, this appears to be a fantastic win, and many might take this option. After all, you're costing your enemy 5 systems for the price of one! What's not to love?
But let's then imagine that all the other powers, including the one attacked, instead spend those same 120k points on acquisition. Therefore, they are all +1, except for the attacked Power, who is -4(-5+1). Meanwhile, you, having sacrificed 120k points to undermine instead of acquire, are at 0.
The mean of 10 1s and -4 is 0.545. So in aggregate, despite having taken a GREAT trade, you have actually fallen behind. On the leaderboard, you are now 0.545 systems further behind than before.
Therein lies the problem. In order for undermining to make sense economically, you must have at least an 11:1 advantage. You must be able to undermine ELEVEN systems away in exchange for the effort needed to acquire ONE. Only at that point does your effort let you keep up with what you would have gained by just using that effort to acquire. But if you have an 11:1 advantage, a strong power could absolutely CRUSH a weaker power!
That's the two-tiered system and the problem with it. It needs to simultaneously achieve two completely disparate things; balanced power vs power conflict, and power vs all powers conflict. And that just can't happen. The two cannot coexist.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the current approach, tweaking undermining numbers, will never achieve it. What they have created his, essentially, something akin to civilization or age of empires, only where you can increase your population, with no strategic or tactical considerations other than building as many units as possible. A straight booming simulator. The surprise shouldn't be that the amount of fighting is minimal, the real surprise should be that anyone is fighting at all.
The game has two levels of competition: Power vs Power, and Power vs ALL Powers.
Undermining is Power vs Power, but the broader GAME is Power vs ALL powers. That's what the leaderboard says, and therefore that's what players care about.
Here's a simple example. Let's imagine you can invest a moderate amount, let's say 120k control points(enough to acquire 1 system), to take down a fortified system and make your enemy lose FIVE systems. On the surface, this appears to be a fantastic win, and many might take this option. After all, you're costing your enemy 5 systems for the price of one! What's not to love?
But let's then imagine that all the other powers, including the one attacked, instead spend those same 120k points on acquisition. Therefore, they are all +1, except for the attacked Power, who is -4(-5+1). Meanwhile, you, having sacrificed 120k points to undermine instead of acquire, are at 0.
The mean of 10 1s and -4 is 0.545. So in aggregate, despite having taken a GREAT trade, you have actually fallen behind. On the leaderboard, you are now 0.545 systems further behind than before.
Therein lies the problem. In order for undermining to make sense economically, you must have at least an 11:1 advantage. You must be able to undermine ELEVEN systems away in exchange for the effort needed to acquire ONE. Only at that point does your effort let you keep up with what you would have gained by just using that effort to acquire. But if you have an 11:1 advantage, a strong power could absolutely CRUSH a weaker power!
That's the two-tiered system and the problem with it. It needs to simultaneously achieve two completely disparate things; balanced power vs power conflict, and power vs all powers conflict. And that just can't happen. The two cannot coexist.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the current approach, tweaking undermining numbers, will never achieve it. What they have created his, essentially, something akin to civilization or age of empires, only where you can increase your population, with no strategic or tactical considerations other than building as many units as possible. A straight booming simulator. The surprise shouldn't be that the amount of fighting is minimal, the real surprise should be that anyone is fighting at all.
Last edited: