Group or Faction: which is the more important?

[Alpenmilch]

Hello TomoRosso, hello Walter,

our Information only based on the last sign of live of your cooperation, given to us in 2016 by Walter.

"I dropped everything at HIP 599 and went to Sag A and then on to Colonia. Ant at Bipek moved further out and TomoRosso almost stopped playing completely.
So - help yourself. We really appreciated the way you guys came in and respected our systems. Thanks you very much and good luck.
Walter”

Maybe your remember you have contacted me before these message, that there was a lack of interest from your side to drive this BGS-gaming further on.

Anyway, I am also not cheering about Walters last message.

We had never ever any aggressive negotiations with you and Walter. In the last two years we not even touched any System with Hernkopa presence. So there is no need to panic. There is even no way we would or could "spacelock" all three yet named Factions or even one of them.
They are all are beside to us and can expand in the opposite direction all around Sag A forever, until you meet us again from the other side in a thousand years from now. I assume you will meet less respectful Player groups than ours on this way.

We are tied to the empire, because otherwise Frontier would not had dropped our Faction in the choosen System, as you know. This is the only reason and we don´t take it to serious, as our story tells you.

The only thing we had said for good reasons was, we won´t giving you two more NPC-Factions in addition to your Player Faction the status "untouchable in every system forever". This never ment, we want to throw you down. There is no reason for you to behave like a victim.

But you going now from one extreme to the other in a few days. The only valid point I can understand is, it is simply to much work to organise close to 40 branches of the named Factions in 25 systems with a small amount of Players. I think this is the only problem you face. I occurs to me, you looking for a reason to drop the ball. But it wasn´t because of us.

Still, we have no hard feelings for you and also hope, you and Walter will find back to the fun of the game.

Fly save

o7

Serge​

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Even if the player and NPC factions are treated equally, one player or group should not claim multiple factions as his own.
This would really ruin the BGS game. And it looks too me that Walter did that.

Sorry, are you new here?

I mean that in jest, but also seriously.

Many original BGS groups - i.e. formed before or at launch of the game - have supported multiple factions from day one (PMFs didnt exist), and have never changed their approach, nor should they need to. Those are the groups that have brought you just about all the knowledge that exists in the community about BGS mechanics.

It feels very strange for those old established groups to have people claim they've been playing the BGS wrong all this time.

 

[Marcus Machiavelli]

Serge, if I could rep you more I would, +1

 

[Mangal Oemie]

...The question is (and we're not trying to garner arguments to bolster our cause - we're just interested), Can two such divergent approaches to the game coexist, or must one approach give way to the other? Is this just another example of the type of binary positioning that ED generates? We don’t have enough information on how other groups are organised to come to a satisfactory conclusion, or to know if our Cooperative is unusual.

Absolutely. And I would extend it well beyond two. There's BGS for PP, for instance, which just cares about government type in a PP bubble, or BGS to push a particular superpower, or BGS to support a particular government type for whatever reason, or BGS to create an anarchy space for PvP meetups, or ... BGS to support a particular minor faction.

People play the BGS for all kinds of reasons, and sometimes those will inevitably conflict. The question then is, whether to avoid conflict, or want to engage. If you do want to engage, it becomes quickly a match of strength and wits. If the groups are equally matched in resources + skills (however that balance falls), those conflicts can last a long time, but they can also be the source of amazing game play, group unity and creation of group stories/history.

As far as playing multiple factions go: a good number of BGS groups, including my own, that started before PMFs even existed, have supported multiple factions since the very beginning.

 

[Alpenmilch]

Sorry, are you new here?

I mean that in jest, but also seriously.

Many original BGS groups - i.e. formed before or at launch of the game - have supported multiple factions from day one (PMFs didnt exist), and have never changed their approach, nor should they need to. Those are the groups that have brought you just about all the knowledge that exists in the community about BGS mechanics.

It feels very strange for those old established groups to have people claim they've been playing the BGS wrong all this time.

Sorry, with all respect, looks like you are new to the discussion here.

It is not about playing right or wrong. It is about gentlemans agreements between Factions. Anybody could kick each other around with any NPC Faction they like. The structure of the game pushes this behavior. So carry on to do so, if you wish.

But some of us like diplomatic negotiations of good neighborhood as part of their game.

This is what this discussion is all about.

 

[Misaniovent]

Sorry, with all respect, looks like you are new to the discussion here.

It is not about playing right or wrong. It is about gentlemans agreements between Factions. Anybody could kick each other around with any NPC Faction they like. The structure of the game pushes this behavior. So carry on to do so, if you wish.

But some of us like diplomatic negotiations of good neighborhood as part of their game.

This is what this discussion is all about.

edit: I'm not directly responding to you, just trying to offer my view as a long-term powerplayer who has encountered this discussion many times.

Agreements are everything. But who has the right to make them, and who has the right to dismiss a request for one? Any group that dismisses a faction as unrepresentable because it is not a PMF closes the door on negotiation. This is an aggressive position to hold, because it carries with it a belief that efforts taken on behalf of a NPC faction are not legitimate. But these efforts exist, NPC factions are supported, and if you are not willing to negotiate with groups that maintain them, then you are either expecting such groups to immediately surrender to any demand you make, or you are promoting conflict.

You cannot say "I am sorry, but you have reached your allotment and can not claim to support additional factions" and expect everyone to acquiesce. Our power must spend money every week to protect itself. In order to properly manage our power, we must anticipate a need to protect any or all of our control systems. Doing so requires us to carefully manage our resources. Achieving BGS objectives — reducing fortification triggers and making those low triggers durable — reduces the total resources required for our defense, making more possible at less cost.

That durability requires us to monitor dozens of control spheres, each including many individual systems. We, like every power, reserve the right to negotiate on behalf of any favorable faction in our domain. This does not mean that we reserve the right to enforce our will wherever, whenever, and however we see fit — but because we have a mechanical impetus for negotiating in favor of these factions, our expectation is that the groups that share our space will at least recognize that we have the standing to do so.

 

[Alpenmilch]

Sorry,but you don´t get the point, too.

What are negotiations?

A negotiation is a strategic discussion that resolves an issue in a way that both parties find acceptable. In a negotiation, each party tries to persuade the other to agree with his or her point of view.

We like to make friends with negotiations. But this does not mean we accept everything without thinking.​

To give you an example. If someone offers me to play chess, I would like to do that. If he said "Lets play for money" maybe I would say ok. But if he would add on top of that: "Look, all my pawns are queens, because it is my board for a very long time." I don´t like to play with him anymore. This is only my decision and you can play with him if you like.

Like many others I played Elite for thousands of hours. Half of the galaxy is green to me, because I worked for a huge bunch of Factions in a lot of Systems over the time, like many others.

Should I say, those several thousand Factions are mine, nobody is allowed to do anything over there forever? Anyone who dismiss my point of view is aggressive?

It is a Sandbox for all childs in the Kindergarten. You can build up your castle, and I will enjoy and apprecciate your work.
But in my view I think you can´t claim every grain in the box it as untouchable forever and hope all kids will agree.

Again. Anybody plays Elite like they want to. Some are Griefers, some love Powerplay, some play the BGS... That is the way it is.

But some ways are a little more helping than others, to enjoy a living breathing universe for all of us.

This is just my opinion, nothing more or less.

​

 

[lemny]

Sorry, are you new here?
I mean that in jest, but also seriously.
Many original BGS groups - i.e. formed before or at launch of the game - have supported multiple factions from day one (PMFs didnt exist), and have never changed their approach, nor should they need to. Those are the groups that have brought you just about all the knowledge that exists in the community about BGS mechanics.
It feels very strange for those old established groups to have people claim they've been playing the BGS wrong all this time.

Since the introduction of player factions, it is possible for everyone to own one. You are free to support any NPC faction you want, but if you own a player faction and go to the negotiating table, then you should understand that the neighbour cannot accept the claim for the player faction AND other NPC factions.
As Serge said, if you play BGS like this, you have an unfair advantage and can expand three times as fast.

If Walter did not own a player faction and had chosen a single NPC faction, one could certainly negotiate his claim for this faction. But it is not okay to claim several factions in diplomatic border negotiations.

 

[Jane Turner]

Sorry, with all respect, looks like you are new to the discussion here.

It is not about playing right or wrong. It is about gentlemans agreements between Factions. Anybody could kick each other around with any NPC Faction they like. The structure of the game pushes this behavior. So carry on to do so, if you wish.

But some of us like diplomatic negotiations of good neighborhood as part of their game.

This is what this discussion is all about.

If this is about a specific dispute, this forum is the wrong place for it and I gently encourage you to take the discussion to the dangerous groups forum. If it's about different ways about enjoying the BGS then carry on.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

My little tidbit of thought to the whole thing is:

This is a game.
Everyone playing it has different views on a matter.
Regardless of the views, getting along and finding mutually beneficial solutions should be the overall consensus.

If for whatever reason someone does not want to find a peaceful solution then that's well within their range of options. But trying to be an Antagonist for the sole reason to create conflict will be remembered by the Elite community and serve as a Stigmata that will haunt said persons for the rest of their presence in the game.

The Elephants in the room have a damn good memory, and they will not forget.

That'll be all.

 

[Jmanis]

Sorry, are you new here?

I mean that in jest, but also seriously.

Many original BGS groups - i.e. formed before or at launch of the game - have supported multiple factions from day one (PMFs didnt exist), and have never changed their approach, nor should they need to. Those are the groups that have brought you just about all the knowledge that exists in the community about BGS mechanics.

It feels very strange for those old established groups to have people claim they've been playing the BGS wrong all this time.

Since the introduction of player factions, it is possible for everyone to own one. You are free to support any NPC faction you want, but if you own a player faction and go to the negotiating table, then you should understand that the neighbour cannot accept the claim for the player faction AND other NPC factions.
As Serge said, if you play BGS like this, you have an unfair advantage and can expand three times as fast.

If Walter did not own a player faction and had chosen a single NPC faction, one could certainly negotiate his claim for this faction. But it is not okay to claim several factions in diplomatic border negotiations.

Welcome to the cognitive dissonance.

Mangal: Re: It feels very strange for those old established groups to have people claim they've been playing the BGS wrong all this time.

You've made mention yourself that FD refused your request to adopt multiple factions. That alone should tell you the FD-endorsed response to a question "Can a group represent multiple factions" is "No". The reasons for this are fairly plain to see; the advantage of single-state factions allows you to simultaneously grow a core faction while using theoretical "dump factions" to lock-out other factions into cycles of war, without suffering the overall influence loss across the board. That concept (That FD does not support a single group "owning" multiple factions) is clearly in-line with the idea of the BGS being a competitive game environment.That you continue to play in a way that does support multiple factions is wrong? Of course not, but it subscribes to the mentality that the BGS is not a competitive environment, merely a backdrop for an ever-changing universe. Yet you're relying on rules used in the context of it being a competitive environment to justify your position. Surely you understand the BGS enough to realise the distinct advantage "owning" multiple factions has over a single-faction group, right?

Let me throw up a hypothetical for you. Let's say a random player group comes along and decides to "adopt" one of the NPC factions you claim to own. FD won't stop it. As far as they're concerned, your group has one faction tagged against it. Do you
1. Accept it as "Oh look, one of our factions has become rebellious" and adapt and overcome from there, or
2. Attempt to invoke ownership of that faction, despite the fact FD don't recognise your claims to it (and let's face it; their game, their rules).

I don't think anyone is in position to say that any group which supports multiple factions is "playing it wrong", but to expect to be afforded the same considerations with respect to faction ownership is in complete contradiction to that... you simply can't have it both ways. They're almost completely exclusive, and that's a major problem in FD's implementation which we all live in, and we're all beholden to.

My group had to make that decision when we put our PMF in the game (in the very first batch), and we chose to singly support our PMF, because the consequences of trying to claim multiple factions were too complicated and unsupportable, from both perspectives.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The reasons for this are fairly plain to see; the advantage of single-state factions allows you to simultaneously grow a core faction while using theoretical "dump factions" to lock-out other factions into cycles of war, without suffering the overall influence loss across the board.

Certainly it's very true that it's easier to manage 4 10-system factions than 1 40-system faction. The diminishing returns with size in the BGS work pretty well.

On the other hand:
- player groups can be any size [1]
- player groups can have any diplomatic stance they choose to other player groups
- it *is* easier to manage smaller factions

So, were there to be an actual "one faction per group" rule, groups could just split into smaller allied groups responsible for a faction each to get around it. Depending on where the size limit for Squadrons ends up, and what Squadron-PMF links end up getting implemented, Frontier might even end up encouraging this behaviour for the biggest groups...

Equally, two groups in conflict who both do obey the "one faction per group" rule ... are perfectly capable of grabbing any conveniently-placed NPC faction they like and using it as a proxy when it suits. If anything that's *more* powerful in a hot war than actually adopting a second group, because it doesn't take time maintaining it and you really don't care if the opposition wastes time stomping it right down afterwards.

[1] 10 is of course needed for official Frontier recognition, but that's largely irrelevant in this context.

 

[Jmanis]

Certainly it's very true that it's easier to manage 4 10-system factions than 1 40-system faction. The diminishing returns with size in the BGS work pretty well.

On the other hand:
- player groups can be any size [1]
- player groups can have any diplomatic stance they choose to other player groups
- it *is* easier to manage smaller factions

So, were there to be an actual "one faction per group" rule, groups could just split into smaller allied groups responsible for a faction each to get around it. Depending on where the size limit for Squadrons ends up, and what Squadron-PMF links end up getting implemented, Frontier might even end up encouraging this behaviour for the biggest groups...

Equally, two groups in conflict who both do obey the "one faction per group" rule ... are perfectly capable of grabbing any conveniently-placed NPC faction they like and using it as a proxy when it suits. If anything that's *more* powerful in a hot war than actually adopting a second group, because it doesn't take time maintaining it and you really don't care if the opposition wastes time stomping it right down afterwards.

[1] 10 is of course needed for official Frontier recognition, but that's largely irrelevant in this context.

Agree to all of that. Again, welcome to the cognitive dissonance. It's not just players, but FD themselves.

Realistically, a proper competitive implementation would be:
- You can only affiliate with one faction.
- Affiliation restricts activity with other factions

You can then talk comfortably breaking down a group into smaller factions, or even have factions unify under a single banner. You could even do that in the current system; break your group down into smaller groups and register each with FD, then "assume control" of one faction per group, but just operate as one large group. This is basically everything wrong and broken with FD's current implementation of the system.

Squadrons, when they're in the game, will almost certainly function like groups, not factions. I know there's been discussion that "A squadron should be tied to a faction" but frankly, it will never work. While Mangal's made claim that "What about all these old groups supporting multiple factions? Have they been playing it wrong?"... what about all the player groups (and there are many) who do not have any PMF in the game, nor support any faction? Have they been "playing it wrong" too? Conversely, I'm almost certain many "groups" only exist because only a group can have a PMF in the game, and that the concept of a group is meaningless. You only have to look at the registration table where many group and faction names are identical, to see this in action.

This is all why I've never supported the idea that the BGS is a competitive strategy-game aspect of Elite, and just the backdrop for player activity and meaningful reactions in the universe... where FD can swing the hand of god wherever they choose (much to the "competition" crowd's disgust). In such a universe, Mangal's view of things is entirely valid. They can claim affiliation to every single Alliance faction in the game if they want.... but they'll never "own" them, at least in FD's eyes. They're simply a large group who happen to support several Alliance factions.

I have never done any inter-group negotiations, but I imagine a stick point is the claim that "As faction X holds system Y, that is our territory". The very underpinning principle of that argument is invalid, when you consider that according to game-lore, we're all Commanders who are part of the Pilot's Federation. We're not members of Sitakapan Expeditionary Forces (though I wrote my PMF's lore very carefully to acknowledge this), or any other factional entity in the game. We're Independent Commanders who happen to have an agenda to support those particular factions... but we have no authority, power or ownership over those factions. This is why we don't hold actual rank in the Federal or Imperial navy, we have honorary titles. We don't "enlist" to a power in Powerplay, we "pledge", it's why we have ranking for Combat, Trade and Exploration, and it's why we can freely affiliate with whatever faction we like. I mean... we can pretend we're something else all we like, but in FD's implementation of the lore, and management of PMFs and Groups, that's simply not the case.

There'll never be closure one way or another on topics like this until FD commit to a single course of action which will please one side of this debate, and alienate the other.

 

[Alpenmilch]

Well, the competition is the structure of the game.

And from the beginning it was much easier to destroy anybodies work, than to build something up. You need 5 to 10 times more Power to defend one Faction against a hidden aggressor, working with the other NPCs in the System against you for example.

In my opinion the hidden thing is the most problematic part for most groups. If Frontier would give you a look which CMDR does what in a system, every Faction supporter would be much better off, because you have a chance to analyse, where it´s coming from.

But we choose to support one Faction and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard...

And we like to be respectful to others doing the same thing. But these are rules we put on rules and we also know by experience, we could not expect the same behavior in return from all Pilots in the universe.

I assume not everybody will be happy with the upcoming Squadron mechanic, whatever it will be. Salty times ahead.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

I assume not everybody will be happy with the upcoming Squadron mechanic, whatever it will be. Salty times ahead.

From what I gathered these Squadrons will be nothing else then the people within a Wing finally having an in-game way to chat with each other. Like being in a Guild in an MMORPG.

 

[FrogsFriend]

Playing with Minor Factions as a 'competitive sport' is entirely by gentleman's (and gentle ladies ) agreement between the participants. The BGS mechanisms by and of themselves don't grant any privilege to player groups or individuals, whether they named a Faction or not, other than the inherent advantage of weight-of-numbers. The only rules are those that the participants agree to abide by.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Playing with Minor Factions as a 'competitive sport' is entirely by gentleman's (and gentle ladies ) agreement between the participants. The BGS mechanisms by and of themselves don't grant any privilege to player groups or individuals, whether they named a Faction or not, other than the inherent advantage of weight-of-numbers. The only rules are those that the participants agree to abide by.

Not to mention that the BGS itself is a completely different league of gameplay in comparison to everything currently in the game. The only other thing that could come close is Powerplay if at all.

 

[Jmanis]

Not to mention that the BGS itself is a completely different league of gameplay in comparison to everything currently in the game. The only other thing that could come close is Powerplay if at all.

Indeed, where the main difference is that Powerplay is the only thing FD attempts to balance in the context of competitive gameplay.

From what I gathered these Squadrons will be nothing else then the people within a Wing finally having an in-game way to chat with each other. Like being in a Guild in an MMORPG.

Yup... I think Squadrons (and the subsequent fleet carriers) have been over-hyped in people's heads only, where FD have made no such claims to support it that hype. When they think fleet carriers they are expecting something like Carriers/Motherships a-la EVE Online, large support ships able to smack down anyone they see, and the ability to "inject" your faction into any system with volition.

Whereas reality is they're almost certainly going to function very similarly to the current implementation of Megaships a-la Canonn's Gnosis, except there will be a level of player-control over where it goes and services available, and maybe with a few extra bits and pieces to liven it up. When the Gnosis jumps into another system, it doesn't disrupt the BGS or influence at all, save to provide a potentially-neutral ground to dock at. Squadrons will simply provide group mobility and logistics.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Squadrons will simply provide group mobility and logistics.

Something I look forward to, even more then Space legs. It'll be nice to see the Carriers act as a mobile base for Rearm / Refuel / Restock if nothing else. Hopefully some chances to modify them defense wise or use up billions of cash to upgrade certain facilities.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Since the introduction of player factions, it is possible for everyone to own one. You are free to support any NPC faction you want, but if you own a player faction and go to the negotiating table, then you should understand that the neighbour cannot accept the claim for the player faction AND other NPC factions.
As Serge said, if you play BGS like this, you have an unfair advantage and can expand three times as fast.

If Walter did not own a player faction and had chosen a single NPC faction, one could certainly negotiate his claim for this faction. But it is not okay to claim several factions in diplomatic border negotiations.

You are literally making up new rules and inventing a new sense of fairness that has no basis in the game. Claims only make sense as long as they are enforceable by the group making them, and the willingness of parties to come to agreement. Whether they are one or more factions, PMF or not, bears no relationship to anything. It is the ability of either group to support and back up their claims that matter.

Our game play and group goals rely on supporting multiple factions, and we have since 3300/2014. Our opponents also don't distinguish and don't only attack our "official" faction (FD allowed one procedural faction to be our official PMF). Unfair advantage? Our group would be instantly bored if we were somehow restricted to just a single faction, and the same goes for almost all day-one BGS groups.