Powerplay Turmoil Order: let's change it to make 5C (almost) impossible to do any actual damage

Any Powerplayer knows it: 5C is a real problem for all the different Powerplay communities, mostly because they can make a Power conquer a bad system which becomes impossible to scrap.

The reason behind this is how the systems that actually can be lost in turmoil are chosen: considering the actual game mechanics the systems with the higher cost go Turmoil first, until the negative reserve is replenished, the "cost" is basically "base income + upkeep", making the most profitable and far away systems the most vulnerable.

You could think that this is a good thing but actually it is not: because of that 5C has a good reason to fill a Power with low income and low upkeep systems (they are the closest to headquarters), some of them are so terrible that their cost (income + upkeep) is lower than the upkeep alone of the farthest control systems.

So it's crystal clear that this particular game mechanic doesn't work that well, and it only is a great advantage (maybe the biggest advantage) to 5C.

Considering that the Devs don't give us any hope about any major update to Powerplay, I hope they could at least change how this priority is set, so to make the worse systems more losable than the best one. Here is my proposal about that.

- UNDERMINED SYSTEMS FIRST
-- this is most logical: systems that are actually undermined should be the ones that go in turmoil, that try to rebel to the Power asking for tributes
-- between Undermined systems the one that should go Turmoil first are the ones with the lower NEAT income (base income - upkeep), this way previously 5Ced systems would be the first to be scrapped, then eventually the border control systems with a lot of contested (right now border systems are almost impossible to scrap!) and finally the most profitable ones, this would give a whole different purpose to weaponised expansions, moving the game a little bit

- CANCELED (both Fortified and Undermined)SYSTEMS NEXT
-- if the undermined systems are not enough to cover the negative CCs, then the priority should go to the ones that have been attacked but the Power managed to defend somehow by fortifying them, this makes sense and would give purpose to fortifiers and underminers when they chose their targets
-- between these systems the first to go turmoil should be the ones with the lowest income, period: they've been fortified so the Power was somehow in control of the situation, but being the attack so deep is the Power itself that decide to focus somewhere else, giving them a chance to revolt.

- UNTOUCHED (neither Fortified or Undermined) SYSTEMS THIRD
-- honestly: this is very unlikely, but you need to set rules, so... if the turmoil is so gigantic (or the Power didn't fortify and the attackers didn't undermined that much) then it's the turn of systems which haven't been neither fortified or undermined successfully
-- again, the ones with lower income are the first to revolt (they were never attacked but the Power economy is so bad they can't actually keep them)

- FINALLY, THE FORTIFIED SYSTEMS
-- honestly: I don't even know if there's any actual possibility that this could be done, but they are the last to consider so...
-- in this limit case the ones with the higher upkeep (the farthest from Headquarters) should be the one to go Turmoil

I think this is very easy to code, this wouldn't change the actual game mechanics (aka the game would remain the same) but it would be a great blow against 5C.

Discuss. ;)
 
Fat chance of Frontier backpedaling now when they likely have plans for powerplay.
After 217 cycles being let down by Frontier about Powerplay, I'd rather like they simply fix what I told in the first message, so we can go on with a slightly improved Powerplay.
 
as always a good idea from Bard.
But i read the word "logical" inside your post so yuo've surely write in the wrong game forum
 
I asked some bots and they are OK with the OP in order to improve their feature.
How do you think that would help botting, honestly? In fact I believe that this could really disarm one of the most fearsome feature of 5C (giving Powers systems they can't lose anymore).
 
It's a better turmoil system than we have now imho. My preferred method though would still be to eliminate the point of 5C altogether by switching from economic turmoil to per system turmoil.

An example:
If a system is Undermined more than 100% than it is Fortified it enters turmoil
Turmoil is a 3 cycle battle. If it is successfully undermined 2 times it Revolts
CC Income per Sphere has a floor of 0CC

Imho if they implemented the above it would make 5C pointless & remove the pressure from commanders of having to fortify ever increasing numbers of systems; Powers would collapses to the size justified by their player base. If it was successful in stabilising player numbers hopefully it would be phase one of changing updating other mechanics like the merit system & moving to Open Only

CMDR Justinian Octavius
 
Last edited:
It's a better turmoil system than we have now imho. My preferred method though would still be to eliminate the point of 5C altogether by switching from economic turmoil to per system turmoil.

An example:
If a system is Undermined more than 100% than it is Fortified it enters turmoil
Turmoil is a 3 cycle battle. If it is successfully undermined 2 times it Revolts
CC Income per Sphere has a floor of CC

Imho if they implemented the above it would make 5C pointless & remove the pressure from commanders of having to fortify ever increasing numbers of systems; Powers would collapses to the size justified by their player base. If it was successful in stabilising player numbers hopefully it would be phase one of changing updating other mechanics like the merit system & moving to Open Only

CMDR Justinian Octavius
Oh that would be ideal of course, this is a "lazy fix", if FDev have no interest in revamping Powerplay they could at least change the turmoil order, that would help a lot (not a real solution, but we need improvements asap).
 
5C will just fort the bad systems they want you to keep, since they're last on the list and nobody on the enemy side is going to UM a big loss maker that they want you to keep too.

I don't think the turmoil order needs to change as much as giving a power the ability to vote and then haul to remove a (non proftable only) system out.
 
5C will just fort the bad systems they want you to keep, since they're last on the list and nobody on the enemy side is going to UM a big loss maker that they want you to keep too.

I don't think the turmoil order needs to change as much as giving a power the ability to vote and then haul to remove a (non proftable only) system out.
First of all: we've got the great 5C issue and you propose to vote to lose systems: dude, really, what would deny 5C to infect even that vote? Voting should be no more, it's been exploited by 5C already, the only "suitable" way is a yay/nay vote for the top 10 preparations on wednesday, as Sammarco proposed (and I'm not a big fan even of that, to be honest).

About the critics on reforming the turmoil order.

What you said is not exactly true nor correct technically speaking, and you should read my proposal with open mind and will to understand the possible situations that a different turmoil order would bring.

Let's say that, as you said, 5C cmdrs simply fortify the bad systems they made that Power conquer. That would be a very risky maneuver from them, because it would be enough for the "real players" to fortify the other systems and proceed for a massive undermine done by their allies.
Remember: we're talking about heavily 5Ced Powers, usually with a very low or even negative income at the beginning of the cycle, so it could be possible to scrap those systems, because the order I proposed is for the ones with the lower neat income (base income - upkeep) to revolt first.

So they risk to make the Power they're trying to 5C into turmoil with only canceled systems and that's exactly the goal I'd like to achieve with a different turmoil order: to make those systems LOSABLE, which is not the case right now.

5C would have to do a lot of extra work to make those systems stick to a Power they harmed before, I see this as a great improvement, don't you think?
 
Top Bottom