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

Passed along from another channel as I think its relevant here to send to Frontier as a suggestion.

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.

-- 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)

-- 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. ;)
Well of course I agree with the post (lol). But what I'd love the most is to have some "real communication" from the Devs about Powerplay, I think that the feedback given by the different leaderships could be useful about Powerplay rules and game mechanics, we did good during the Focused Feedback for example, even if there was people only interested to undermine any "open-onlyish" requests, flooding and putting chaos into serious discussions.
Top Bottom