Powerplay How to contact and join the Powerplay Community for each Power

Good informative original post - Many thanks Justinian. Shame the advert for PowerPlay degraded so quickly in the replies below it..... Not really the intention of the OP I imagine....
Be good if a Moderator could just take the first post and make it a sticky.

I can understand it though, because its soul destroying having to mitigate it each week. I ran the Antal Reddit you list for 2 years, help set up the Discord too, doing that, continually asking for votes / work against 5C while trying to enjoy yourself is hard- its a second job practically. FD seem oblivious to it even though running these pages and Powers each week is a full time job, and gets hardly any attention.

Years ago Powers got on. They hated each other, but had grudging respect after hard battles. All Powers want a return to that.
 
It would be nice if the OP, or the information in it, was stickied but since I'm not a Mod it would be understandable and reasonable if it isn't.

I think part of the issue with Powerplay's perception is perhaps that a lot of the activities done by its commanders and Player Groups/Squadrons are game loops that can be done by anyone. For instance, if I go wing mining to pay for Power Commodities that is Powerplay but it won't be recorded as such in the metrics I suspect. Likewise, if I am running missions for BGS to reduce or raise a Power's triggers that is Powerplay but I'd be surprised if the metrics recorded it as such & etc. In essence, most of the in game activities done by Powerplay pledged commanders & Player Groups have nothing to do with the earning of Merits but without 'Powerplay' those activities wouldn't happen and in many cases the Player Groups doing them probably wouldn't even exist.

CMDR Justinian Octavius
 
So my base instinct said "if that guy doesnt have a group how can I support him?"

Reading the thread I realised theres so much about PP I dont understand

Ive read and watched content about how to get Pack Hounds and Prismatics as a grind but beyond that I dont really get it

I dont know what 5C is

I dont really get Discord either I down loaded it on my PC but it wouldnt send my messages to a squadron i dont really like downloading apps hard to get rid of
 
Well Powerplay is much more complicated than it seems, of course you have to want to play it for a purpose and not just for modules.

And this was not a message to bump up the thread because no moderator did us the favour to ping it, even if it's kind of an important thread.
 
I think there would be a way to kind of enforce open even with fleet carriers.

First of all, they could have it so you could only pick up PP cargo only see NPC PP ships in open. They could also make it so you could only play in open when you have any PP merits and cargo.

For the FC, there could also be a setting with "PP enabled" which make it only show up in open. If you have any merits or PP cargo you could only land on a FC with PP enabled. If you want to change the setting for your carry, this would happen at the same time as the PP tick, and evict any ship no longer allowed on it.

There's also potential in that you could pledge the carriers themselves.
 
I suggested in feedback that there should be an option to order a Fleet Carrier to attack enemy commanders who attempt to dock at it.

CMDR Justinian Octavius
Well considering that you can simply make them landable by friends and squadron members... problem is that you can store powerplay commodities...
 
Well considering that you can simply make them landable by friends and squadron members... problem is that you can store powerplay commodities...

Most commanders of most Powers are not in a single squadron and squadrons on different platforms are different squadrons in the view of the game. As for the loading of Power Commodities onto Fleet Carriers being possible for some Powers, hopefully that will be fixed but I fear it will become a 'feature' that will have to be lived with.

CMDR Justinian Octavius
 
Well I don't know if FDev is looking here, but since we all know that 5C is a pain in the back for everyone and the proposals Sandro made centuries ago are probably going to stay in the drawer of "good ideas that we didn't have time or resources to implement", there's a simple change that the devs may do and I think would mitigate the abominable use of zombie powers to throw "weaponized" expansions: remove contested CC. That is, we go back to a first come, first served system: the one who gets the bubble first, keeps it. If someone expands in a system that "contests" it, it will just provide CC for the "free" systems and not affect those who are already under control.

The only problem would be to take a decision for those bubbles that are currently overlapping, but I'm pretty sure that FDev can track when the expansions took place.
 
Well I don't know if FDev is looking here, but since we all know that 5C is a pain in the back for everyone and the proposals Sandro made centuries ago are probably going to stay in the drawer of "good ideas that we didn't have time or resources to implement", there's a simple change that the devs may do and I think would mitigate the abominable use of zombie powers to throw "weaponized" expansions: remove contested CC. That is, we go back to a first come, first served system: the one who gets the bubble first, keeps it. If someone expands in a system that "contests" it, it will just provide CC for the "free" systems and not affect those who are already under control.

The only problem would be to take a decision for those bubbles that are currently overlapping, but I'm pretty sure that FDev can track when the expansions took place.
Until a Power is completely parasited by 5C, weaponised expansions are among the best defences against it.

Part of the rise of 5C is the weakness of conventional attacks versus defence, and removing weaponised expansions would weaken attacking potential and only serve to incentivise 5C further as the primary means to ruin a power. It would minimise the potential to wreck others with a parasite Power, admittedly, but that just swings the 5C wrecking-ball throughout PP that much faster. Which might be the best thing for PP if Fdev arent going to save it any time soon.

It takes a huge amount of time & effort to keep these playergroups together in spite of the mechanics. Weaponised expansions could conceivably survive a remodelling of the feature. The fatal flaws left to fester are far more significant and unambiguously negative than weaponised expansions

*edit: removed wrecktastic repetition and a weird looking smiley, given how morbid my post was.. *
 
Last edited:
Until a Power is completely parasited by 5C, weaponised expansions are among the best defences against it.

How? If a Power is struggling to preserve CC, it cannot afford weaponised expansion. That's the reason why Grom and Torval are used to throw weaponised expansions, because they have nothing to lose. I cannot see how weaponised expansions could protect a power from 5C.

Part of the rise of 5C is the weakness of conventional attacks versus defence, and removing weaponised expansions would weaken attacking potential and only serve to incentivise 5C further as the primary means to ruin a power.
Ok now I understand what you were meaning, it would make 5C a more appealing tactic. Fair point. But we are back at the dev desk: to solve the 5C and other problems that afflict PP it would be necessary to improve the Powers' ability to get rid of bad system, and to have good offensive mechanisms, like targeting an enemy CS with an ensuing battle for control. A kind of Powers-piloted Community Goals. All of this would require a redesign of the PP mechanics plus creating an in-game interface to carry out these actions. Which is something that currently FDev cannot or doesn't want to do, apparently. My idea here was exactly to change just how CC are calculated, which would require a minimum effort from devs.
 
One of the biggest (ans simplest) potential ideas from the proposal was weighted expansions, if they were in it would make 5C much much harder at the cost of weaponized expansions (since they are mechanically the same).

The problem being the whole proposal was full of little ideas that work together, if you cherry pick them (absurd since the whole proposal is really, really small to begin with) I'm not sure what gameplay you are fostering or even preserving.
 
The weighted per system voting would have been an improvement for certain but it wouldn't solve 5C entirely due to the game not knowing the state of potential Preparations in the future; eg you could still end up with a stinking loss of a system if 5C Prepped & pushed through 2 systems at the same time that Contested each other.

CMDR Justinian Octavius
 
How? If a Power is struggling to preserve CC, it cannot afford weaponised expansion. That's the reason why Grom and Torval are used to throw weaponised expansions, because they have nothing to lose. I cannot see how weaponised expansions could protect a power from 5C.
If you lose control of >25% of your votes to randoms & 5C, so cant fully consolidate to prevent 5C preps, ideally there would be a profitable prep you can go for. This isnt very likely however, so instead you have to put an unwanted prep above the 5C preps. If it is a weaponised expansion then its more likely it will be effectively opposed, and if it does go through then your opponent(s) are negatively affected as well as your own power.
Worst case, you turn a 'lose' into a 'win-lose' which is the best outcome you can achieve in the circumstances.
 
I almost miss Powerplay.

I do miss having a community that could independently understand the calculations.

I know a lot of people asked this to be pinned, but I didn't see anyone mention REPORTing the OP. That's what you do - you report it and request it pinned.
Mods don't necessarily read all the threads and get their value, reporting brings things to the mods' attention.
 
Top Bottom