If i am reading your graph correctly, there is 5 PMF who managed to control 40 ish systems in one month ?
PMFs: data, charts, and the coming galactic player wars...
- Thread starter Mangal Oemie
- Start date
If i am reading your graph correctly, there is 5 PMF who managed to control 40 ish systems in one month ?
I work with one of the new PMFs. We've got the influence in our home system needed for a (bloodless) coup against the current Controlling faction, but they're present in 6 other systems and getting them out of conflict states is a right pain. I'd been hoping that coup took priority over conflict by influence match, but apparently not. I'm now assuming it goes by ye olde 'predetermined by apparently random' order Dav once mentioned. So we're keeping our influence over 60, ending the other faction's conflict states as they come up, and waiting to have our turn. Rather frustrating.
It hasn't been a month its been 3 weeks!
20 days to be exact,
on the 1st day we couldn't do any missions, 7 days for an election, 11 days to expand .. give us a chance!!
This Probably goes here:
[video=vimeo;266404573]https://vimeo.com/266404573[/video]
https://vimeo.com/266404573
[video=vimeo;266404573]https://vimeo.com/266404573[/video]
https://vimeo.com/266404573
in Davinci corp I deal with diplomacy, overcrowding can become a problem, above all because there is no real dynamic of play, which allows to protect the territories "conquered".
We should think of a system of "pledge" for minor faction, with the ability to engage pvp and, above all, as you are about to do for power play, the actions that affect the bgs must be done in open play. This would allow the survival of the pmf concretely supported by organized groups of players, would open to new game dynamics such as true armed trade, armed stocks etc.
In my modest point of view (actually dav is the "frist" pmf ) the players who deal with bgs are a very large group and above all they are those who "fill" with contents this splendid container called ED; the most active and most numerous communities are those that are involved in the BGS and, above all, they are the ones that entertain the greatest number of players.
Frontiers, please take care of us.
We should think of a system of "pledge" for minor faction, with the ability to engage pvp and, above all, as you are about to do for power play, the actions that affect the bgs must be done in open play. This would allow the survival of the pmf concretely supported by organized groups of players, would open to new game dynamics such as true armed trade, armed stocks etc.
In my modest point of view (actually dav is the "frist" pmf ) the players who deal with bgs are a very large group and above all they are those who "fill" with contents this splendid container called ED; the most active and most numerous communities are those that are involved in the BGS and, above all, they are the ones that entertain the greatest number of players.
Frontiers, please take care of us.
I disagree.
The primary purpose of the BgS is to simulate a "living" galaxy, reflecting the actions of all players, whatever platform or mode they are in, and covers a lot more than just being a conflict-driver. I don't want to be playing in a galaxy that is only reacting to 1 game-mode, that feels limited to me.
On the other hand, the recent proposal to make Powerplay open-only is entirely appropriate, as the feature was always supposed to be a conflict-driver between players.
What kind of "living galaxy" are we talking about? You know it's not like this and you insist on defending "solo play".
If BGS really influenced the Galaxy, local markets would have to change on goods for sale, both in quantity and in prices. Instead it is not like that. Even if you saturate a market by selling a commodity until you reach the required quantity, you just need to dislodge and reload to find the demand unchanged. It's a four year old discussion.
BGS affects only the percentage influence of minor factions, determining its states. And states are the spies that measure the balance of power between minor factions, including conflicts.
If the FDevs wanted Elite: Simulator they would not have entered conflicts in the mechanics of the game. In fact it is called Elite: Dangerous.
An entirely specious set of arguments.
Being a member of the first PMF does not mean what you say carries more weight or is in any way more 'right' than any other contribution to this thread. And you don't speak to FD on my behalf.
You imply that only players in Open add to the BGS. Does this mean that PG players are in a separate game entirely and are disorganised and incapabable of supporting a PMF? Solo players make no contribution to the BGS because they operate in a static environment?
Your language betrays your bias: 'conquered', 'engaged PvP', 'true (whatever that is) armed trade' and 'armed stocks'. Just because there is an element of conflict in the game, it does not have to be the most important for all players. Arguably, the BGS is more varied and dynamic because players are able to take part in ways that suit them best - they continue to play without having to conform to a single aggressive inter-player playing style.
Isn't the search for non-violent resolution the basis of all diplomacy?
Apologies to all - déjà vu strikes again.
It's like with the chicken and the egg I guess. Nevers stops.
I'm defending BgS in all modes. Be accurate.
I notice that the essence of my observation is not grasped, and I notice that perhaps you are not aware of everything.
The last "war" that DaVinci had was at the exit of 1.3, and it was against Utopia, with which today we have a very good friendship. To avoid that the pmf of the sector could enter into conflict, I proposed and founded with the help of all the others, the Pegasi Sector Commonwealth, an association that gathers the major pmf of the area, which are committed to peacefully coexist, to physically help each other in the daily life of managing the bgs. Even in the statute of the PSC it is clearly stated that the organization has purely defensive functions and that it promotes peace. In the event of contacts with other PMFs by each of the PSC members, the PSC itself intervenes with its diplomatic corps
.
Like DaVinci, only I am on 48 discord servers, with diplomatic tasks, and I'm not the only one doing it.
Please do not draw conclusions without fully knowing the commitment of others in trying to make the game enjoyable for everyone.
"Conquest" to understand, is that thing that you do every time you go to war with a minor faction NPC. Winning a war for controlling a system is called "Conquest".
Playing the bgs in the open, basically, would give everyone responsibility, Everyone, worried about the consequences, would think of it before ruining someone else's bgs.
There is one small ripple in the BGS world. Identifying who is in charge of which PMF. This is especially pointy when PC PMFs have been going since the early days and some will have grabbed early territory but are now abandoned.
PC - Xbox - PS4 don't interact so our PMF (PS4 only) don't / won't see any PC or Xbox players and I doubt that they'll know who to contact if one of their PMFs are introduced somewhere close to our corner of the bubble.
Frontier need to include some form of inter-PMF messaging system in game. Let's hope that it'll come as part of the Q4 squadrons update
PC - Xbox - PS4 don't interact so our PMF (PS4 only) don't / won't see any PC or Xbox players and I doubt that they'll know who to contact if one of their PMFs are introduced somewhere close to our corner of the bubble.
Frontier need to include some form of inter-PMF messaging system in game. Let's hope that it'll come as part of the Q4 squadrons update
This is a good point.
I find it particularly difficult when the PMF name does not correspond to the name of the player group behind it.
EDIT: Wars have been fought over it!
Last edited:
Absolutely! pmfs at this moment are subjectes with their own life, unliked to player groups. This make complicated the relationships between players groups.
And are they readily available? Declared on your website / Inara page / etc?
There is no requirement or rule that states that both Wing and PMF have to be named the same or that the affiliation of the two needs to be known to everyone.
When another PMF comes close or is implemented nearby, they can establish contact and work things out. Keeping things between neighbours so to speak, and more isn't needed.
There's always a way to contact each other (Welcome to the Internet!) but some want to have things served on a silver platter and look squarely at you if you don't shove the information down their throat in a heartbeat. These kinds of persons are not worthy of your attention in the first place.
Last edited: