PP 2.0 has sent BGS into crisis

Shadowsnog

Shadowsnog
Ian Doncaster said:
What counts as an "unfavourable" minor faction in this context (other than "not yours", of course)? I'm curious - I can see plenty of reasons (though maybe none worth the effort of deliberately changing them) for Powerplayers to want particular states to be active, but very few reasons to care which faction has those states.
Click to expand...
anarchy faction being taken down to ease bounty hunting. noted this is an npc faction, we arent stomping anyones flowers as far as i know.
Ian Doncaster said:
I can certainly see the reverse incentive where a BGS group finds it useful to flip the Power in its entire space to a consistent one, yes.
Click to expand...
which isnt as easily done as said. if you dont pledge you cant flip power. if you pledge but you arent in your powers vicinity you are experiencing penalties and your activities are heavily limited.
seems like the best option for bgs players who want to keep their bgs space, is to just wait for a power to occupy them and pledge to that one. this is guaranteed to provide a good gameplay out of powerplay while maintaing your bgs. the other options are either not pledging, which will exepmt you from the power bonuses and options to control your space, or embarking on a perilous quest to get power of your choosing to your space, which is as far from easy as it can get.
either way unless you either succumb and go with the flow of the powers in your space, or abandon your bgs to play power in the power space, your experience is going to be a little stinky. and i find that to be somewhat questionable game design, at least in this iteration.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
Ian Doncaster said:
I'm still inclined to "there are a lot of other players doing BGS actions in that system right now" as the obvious explanation for the observed influence gains elsewhere.
Click to expand...
9bmvoc.jpg
 

Kira Goto

Kira Goto
The only thing I am annoyed with about this situation right now is... the people flocking out to the Coalsack nebula (or returning to it from exploring) with their Mandalays is really slowing down my attempts at restoring its BGS power balance as it was before I came there to boot Sirius out of it.

That, and the Powerplay activities are causing a certain genocidal and unwanted company which has little care for ethics or human rights to expand in a system which used to be perfectly stable prior. Aka Azimuth. And nobody really wants them.
 

the100thmonkey

the100thmonkey
Gabriel H said:
Has the galaxy collapsed into ruin yet?
Click to expand...
Only if you're a slovenly and gluttonous PMF that has grown beyond the means and competence necessary to manage all those systems (number big. number get more big. more big number more good) in the BGS after Ascendancy.

It's almost like the BGS when you had to actively manage states because they were global never existed. That was a bone FDev should never have thrown to the BGS-oriented players and groups. I should know: I am one and am in one.
 

Donald Duck

Donald Duck
-EJ- said:
I just want to point out that you're highlighting typical maintenance tasks which aren't all that entertaining admittedly.
However when you get into the expansion mechanics and start working other systems for whatever reasons (a pmf conflict is a good one) it does get much more exciting
Click to expand...
No doubt these are 'typical' maintainance tasks and part of the game, just that so far there has been some kind of logic or mathematical equation behind it, that one could figure out, (re)act accordingly and 'tame' it.

Parts of this equation had been altered for reasons of PP 2.0 and are producing unwanted results, yet PP was not supposed to have that much of an effect on INF as it is having, if I am not mistaken. One of the results of this is pmfs slinding into unwanted expansions, jeopardizing not only their (long term) strategies or planning, but also 'peace treaties' between pmfs and forcing them into a gameplay with new/unknown conditions. Of which some don't make sense, at least on the first glance...

These changes can of course be seen as a challenge to be mastered, but I am not sure that even FDev would know what to do in detail, except a blunt general 'invest more time to do more' strategy/advise.
 

HCR Motorhead

H
I think some people are getting caught up too much such that they are missing the point: certain missions are broken. A lot of BGS players tend to be mechanically sound. I found that for my faction around ALD space, normal trade missions don't work, elections do not work as intended, even kill pirate lord missions don't work. I've had to break it down to solely using bounty hunting for pushing factions up and murder for pushing some down. Exploration data also seems reliable but that requires going off and doing stuff and I don't get around to that often.

What people are asking for is to address these issues. I am happy to play with PP 2.0 in mind but not in this state. Missions seem to be the focal point in a lot of cases. I would like that gameplay loop to work as it should so that everyone can enjoy it, whether the player cares about how meaningful or not the mission may be outside of the rewards. To invalidate another players' fun and way of doing things in this game is not cool.
 

SteveWW57

SteveWW57
Donald Duck said:
One of the results of this is pmfs slinding into unwanted expansions, jeopardizing not only their (long term) strategies or planning, but also 'peace treaties' between pmfs and forcing them into a gameplay with new/unknown conditions.
Click to expand...
Unwanted expansions can be a pain, but if a pmf expands somewhere they do not want to go, they can just ignore it (apart from advising the pmf controlling the system of the situation). Eventually they might get retreated, just let nature take its course. Conflicts can be ignored!

I would be surprised if there were many large pmfs actively expanding. There is limited real estate available, and having more means just more effort to manage.
 

Donald Duck

Donald Duck
SteveWW57 said:
Unwanted expansions can be a pain, but if a pmf expands somewhere they do not want to go, they can just ignore it (apart from advising the pmf controlling the system of the situation). Eventually they might get retreated, just let nature take its course. Conflicts can be ignored!

I would be surprised if there were many large pmfs actively expanding. There is limited real estate available, and having more means just more effort to manage.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but who subscribed to "pain"? ;)
 

Screemonster

Screemonster
the100thmonkey said:
It's almost like the BGS when you had to actively manage states because they were global never existed. That was a bone FDev should never have thrown to the BGS-oriented players and groups. I should know: I am one and am in one.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that little detail was an important brake on factions just spamming expansions from their lowest-pop system and blobbing out everywhere. At least they can be retreated from more than one system at once now, but an expansion can't be overridden or halted once it's triggered either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom