Powerplay Why would a stable power be in danger of collapse and removal?

[Rubbernuke]

Just a quick question:

Logically, if a power is stable and is +vc CC, no turmoil and never expands, why would it be in trouble?

The Powerplay mechanics seem to want you to fail, in some sort of positive feedback loop.

Would FD remove a power in such a situation? Perfectly healthy but not dancing to the correct tune?

 

[Kowboat]

Not if it's an Imperial power~

 

[John Adams]

Yawn! Is it possible that we can have an objective discussion about power play without the power partisanship.

Back on topic!

Power play needs to become a galactic struggle for influence and not Elite: Total War that we have currently.

The overt elements need to be major struggles for wrestling systems. This brings commanders to these areas to duke it out either in PVE or PVP. However 80% should be covert. This fits more into the lore and would make more sense. The collapse mechanism is interesting because if you don't have a risk of removing a power from the game then you remove a lot of the tension. That being said if enough powers were able to gang up on a power that had already been reduced to a small number of control systems then it should be possible cause them to collapse. I think opposing community goals would be a good way determine if the collapse would be successful.

 

[Ben Ryder]

I was thinking the same thing myself Duke. Even going as far as why must a power expand every cycle anyway?


The way thinsg are their is no 'Yes' / 'No' vote to Preperation so as soon as CC becomes available preparation followed by expansion is a certainty.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yawn! Is it possible that we can have an objective discussion about power play without the power partisanship.

Back on topic!

Power play needs to become a galactic struggle for influence and not Elite: Total War that we have currently.

The overt elements need to be major struggles for wrestling systems. This brings commanders to these areas to duke it out either in PVE or PVP. However 80% should be covert. This fits more into the lore and would make more sense. The collapse mechanism is interesting because if you don't have a risk of removing a power from the game then you remove a lot of the tension. That being said if enough powers were able to gang up on a power that had already been reduced to a small number of control systems then it should be possible cause them to collapse. I think opposing community goals would be a good way determine if the collapse would be successful.

I think with Archon Delaine and Torval the mystery behind collapse is become a sense of apathy- since the pathway is not documented, powers are beginning to poke the tiger a bit and see what they can get away with.

What gets me is that PP seems so forced and artificial. To remove a power, they should be beaten back to the home system, and then become a system faction (thus eliminated).

 

[Ben Ryder]

Yup. Power play could easily have been made sensible and accessible by building on the faction mechanics rather than being something in it's own dimension.

 

[Cliffson]

Yup. Power play could easily have been made sensible and accessible by building on the faction mechanics rather than being something in it's own dimension.

This, so much this.

I'm wondering if the player owned minor factions things I've seen talk about is perhaps a new path they're going to try and take.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Just a quick question:

Logically, if a power is stable and is +vc CC, no turmoil and never expands, why would it be in trouble?

The Powerplay mechanics seem to want you to fail, in some sort of positive feedback loop.

Would FD remove a power in such a situation? Perfectly healthy but not dancing to the correct tune?

PP mechanics FORCES constant expansion to promote conflict between factions and are basically DESIGNED to go into turmoil sooner or later.

The decision by FD to have the highest merit reward to kill ships in other systems points towards a forced style of gameplay instead of player driven emergent gameplay.

 

[Vasious]

If they wanted powers to be forced to expand, they should do away with overheads, but have systems produce less each turn they are controlled/exploited, so eventually a Power that did not expand would collapse due to lack of command capital coming out of the core systems.
Throw in some way to directly take systems from other powers for a way to steal CC and see where the scarcity of CC leads

As the OP says, it makes no sense one can be stable and have a nice steady positive income in CC and collapse due to a lack of land grab

 

[withnail]

I'll admit, this aspect of PP makes little sense to me.

It's too much like a board game that no one can lose.

 

[Roybe]

The idea of this is that the Powers are meant to be constantly shifting and player decided.

This being said, there is not guarantee that a Power will be removed...it is a 'chance' when they do not expand AND are in the bottom 3 places.

That means every time they fail to expand while they are on the bottom they roll a die to see if they are able to play the next time.

No one has rolled badly, yet.

People argue IF this feature is even live yet...so...until we see a power fail...we have to believe that the feature is live and the rolls have been good.

 

[Darth Ender]

The game relies too heavily on rng's and not enough on just following a cause and effect relationship, partly due to a lack of simulated and player contributed variables to be useful.

Not expanding should have nothing to do with the power existing. Collapse should occur from the visible fall from power that would come from contraction of control systems to a lower limit of how many are needed to be a power. No dice rolling. No arbitrary rules. Simple, visible, cause and effect.

 

[Hellhawk666]

...
Logically, if a power is stable and is +vc CC, no turmoil and never expands, why would it be in trouble?

The Powerplay mechanics seem to want you to fail, in some sort of positive feedback loop.

Because the PP gameplay mechanics are like those of a trading card game (that is being played at a glacial pace) and in that model there has to be winners and losers.

 

[Apos]

I assume that the systems under a power's control are there mostly for their financial/security interests.

A power which fails to expand time and time again shows weakness in expanding both its financial and securing a safe sector for its members. Thus they eventually revolt and dismantle the power.

Although it seems nonsensical to have them do it at the same time.

Maybe each time you fail to move your preparations to a successful expansion should slowly incur a heavier CC penalty per week, so that systems go into turmoil for small powers as well.