Group or Faction: which is the more important?

[Mangal Oemie]

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.

The only thing official PMF status confers is that no new PMFs can be inserted into a system where one recognized is already present. That goes for us for Wolf 406 Transport & Co, where in the latest round of PMF insertion a number of requests were rejected for that reason. In another faction we support, four PMFs were inserted. We reached out to those (most proved impossible to contact), not because we objected to the insertion, but because we thought it was a bit cruel for FD to place PMFs in a area where they were unlikely to have any chance. The internal debate on that was only whether it was Frontier's responsibility to warn player groups they're requesting placement in a system already ruled by a 20+ system faction, or whether that is the responsibility for the player group to figure out, and match that with their goals for the faction. (if you don't intend to play the BGS with the PMF, who cares, really). So far though, none have shown signs of life...

And we are fully aware that ownership of factions is entirely ephemeral. Nothing in the game stops anyone from supporting or opposing any of the factions we support. We fully accept that. That's how the game works. If you're in a busy area, CMDRs will both support and oppose you, simply by running missions, or bounty hunting, or whatever where they just happen to be that day.

With regards to your hypothetical: we actually had this happen. We recently gained a recruit who was supporting W406 T&C on his own, discovered that AEDC was behind that faction, and he concluded it was smarter to join our group. Now, that was for the "official" PMF, but we don't really make that distinction in the first place (we prefer the term "player supported faction", the majority of PMFs are not worked at all)

The only way ownership can be invoked at all, is through game activity and effort. We have supported abandoned Alliance PMFs in the past we never requested.

So, your group made a decision to support just one. Other established group got a PMF, but kept supporting their other pet factions, too. Just because one set of PMF supporters made a decision one way doesn't mean that that is now the new ruleset. If others choose to limit themselves, as they only want to support a single faction, fine! It's never been an issue for us to support multiple factions, and support our claims to those.

We also would never invoke the help of Frontier or leverage the official status of the PMF to resolve a conflict. Godmodding is unacceptable to us.

 

[Misaniovent]

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".

This is a politically useful interpretation, but it's baseless.

That Frontier has replaced their recognized-adoption system with a PMF request system does not imply that Frontier endorses a view that a single group cannot represent multiple factions. It only means that Frontier is no longer officially acknowledging adoptions and, as restated today, that Frontier will only create one PMF per player group.

Nowhere has Frontier implied that organized communities cannot support and defend more than one minor faction at a time. If a faction is supported, then it is supported. If it is defended, then it is defended. Arguing that this support and defense isn't legitimate or is unfair might be a popular tactic when such groups clash with PMFs, but it is not a path to effective negotiations and happy communities.

I don't think anyone is in position to say that any group which supports multiple factions is "playing it wrong"

Yet this is the position you are taking, and as I quoted above, you are arguing that it is endorsed by Frontier.

 

[Loretharn]

The Likedeeler do not want to set universal rules for the BGS. As tenth largest faction in the game and backed by more than 200 commanders, of course we can support and back up our claims, but we do not want to do it by force in the first place. It is not only the "elephant memory" of the community that lets us talk and negotiate first. We are far from being an antagonist for the sole reason to create conflict. We know how difficult it is to manage a faction even in a friendly environment with only random influence of other players. That is why it is not our intention to deliberately destroy the sandcastles of other groups. In this particular case we were warned not to cross borders to three factions. We did not intend to do it in the first place but found the demand quite bold. And, of course, we talked first, presented our point of view and hoped to find a friendly agreement in the end. The disbandment of the Hernkopa cooperation was not our intention.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

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.

I beg to differ on that particular topic. Nothing could be more horrible then to track multiple (P)MF and make sure they all are in the clear in the eyes of my Wing and myself. We're currently in control of 16 Systems and after every War or two we're needing quite some time to get things back into the green.

If there was the need for spreadsheets or multitasking more then the one we have it would probably mean a burnout within a very short amount of time of all people in our BGS team. That's not how we roll so to speak.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

I know of a couple of the originals that track 100s of systems daily.

I just pulled this from our records. Since 1/1/2017 I have made 174,093 faction influence updates

We don't use spreadsheets. We need databases....

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

It is not only the "elephant memory" of the community that lets us talk and negotiate first. We are far from being an antagonist for the sole reason to create conflict.

That specific phrase wasn't coined at The Likedeelers in any way. More at those who create PMF and scream foul, trying to drag the community into doing their bidding and once the so called emergent gameplay is created just watch the ensuing carnage. The type of people who have no imagination of their own and need to create conflict so they have something to brag about how great they are, only to abandon their so called ideals and switch to something else when things get too boring and they need a new kick.

Lucky for us they die out as fast as they are created due to that.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

I know of a couple of the originals that track 100s of systems daily.

I just pulled this from our records. Since 1/1/2017 I have made 174,093 faction influence updates

We don't use spreadsheets. We need databases....

Glad you do have those, I am happy I'll never need any database

 

[Alpenmilch]

That specific phrase wasn't coined at The Likedeelers in any way. More at those who create PMF and scream foul, trying to drag the community into doing their bidding and once the so called emergent gameplay is created just watch the ensuing carnage. The type of people who have no imagination of their own and need to create conflict so they have something to brag about how great they are, only to abandon their so called ideals and switch to something else when things get too boring and they need a new kick.

Lucky for us they die out as fast as they are created due to that.

We know those guys very well, too.

Have a beer

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

We know those guys very well, too.

Have a beer

Thanks, and I bet pretty much everyone does at this point. I'm in over 20 Discords and they're the running joke in all of them.

And that's all they'll ever be.

 

[Jmanis]

The only thing official PMF status confers is that no new PMFs can be inserted into a system where one recognized is already present.

So, your group made a decision to support just one. Other established group got a PMF, but kept supporting their other pet factions, too. Just because one set of PMF supporters made a decision one way doesn't mean that that is now the new ruleset. If others choose to limit themselves, as they only want to support a single faction, fine! It's never been an issue for us to support multiple factions, and support our claims to those.

Honestly, a lot of your comments in your thread here beg to differ on that one, in my opinion.

This is a politically useful interpretation, but it's baseless.

That Frontier has replaced their recognized-adoption system with a PMF request system does not imply that Frontier endorses a view that a single group cannot represent multiple factions. It only means that Frontier is no longer officially acknowledging adoptions and, as restated today, that Frontier will only create one PMF per player group.

Nowhere has Frontier implied that organized communities cannot support and defend more than one minor faction at a time. If a faction is supported, then it is supported. If it is defended, then it is defended. Arguing that this support and defense isn't legitimate or is unfair might be a popular tactic when such groups clash with PMFs, but it is not a path to effective negotiations and happy communities.

Yet this is the position you are taking, and as I quoted above, you are arguing that it is endorsed by Frontier.

I had a longer post planned, but hated that too.

Firstly, you've totally misinterpreted what I said. The fact you dropped the critical half of the sentence:

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.

Nowhere have I said a player group cannot support multiple factions. Go out and give support to whoever you want. I even say that in my post.

What I have said is that a group cannot represent (i.e claim ownership of) multiple factions, and FD's conditions support that statement.

Player groups can only have one associated minor faction.

In fact, I think FD's choice of words are poor, because "association" has broader scope than representation; you could associate with something without being a representative, but you are inherently an associate if you can represent them. Support, Associate and Represent are all entirely different concepts.

Bottom line; you cannot represent more than one faction. Go out and support more than one faction, but don't expect the considerations FD afford when it comes to (using FD's own words) association, for multiple factions.

Look... AEDC are between a rock and a hard place because of FD's massive cluster of an implementation which I identified would happen way back when the idea first got floated by FD.... again... that's why I decoupled my own group and faction from other PMFs I'd been supporting, because the assertions of representation I'd intended to make were not going to hold given FD's rules. My group happily supported multiple Imperial Dictatorships, and wished for a way to actually associate them all together, but given FD's rules, that was impossible. Whether AEDC like it or not, it's a thing, and frankly, it's not their fault, it's a by-product of a bad implementation.

I think AEDC *should* be able to have claim over those multiple factions... but it's simply not supported or recognised under that implementation, and there's a massive discussion to be had to fix it.

 

[Misaniovent]

What I have said is that a group cannot represent (i.e claim ownership of) multiple factions, and FD's conditions support that statement.

I didn't misinterpret what you said. I disagree with your distinction. Representation and support for a minor faction go hand in hand; a procedurally-generated minor faction that Frontier hasn't acknowledged as adopted has no "official" representative. Supporters of such factions become their de facto representatives. I represent factions through my actions: local groups might recognize that a faction is receiving support through their own observation, and may make choices accordingly. And I represent factions through outreach, contacting our neighbors when necessary.

In fact, I think FD's choice of words are poor, because "association" has broader scope than representation; you could associate with something without being a representative, but you are inherently an associate if you can represent them. Support, Associate and Represent are all entirely different concepts.

I feel that the context makes it clear that Frontier is saying that registered player groups cannot have more than one PMF created on their behalf. No one requires Frontier's approval to support and, if necessary, represent multiple chosen minor factions.

My group happily supported multiple Imperial Dictatorships, and wished for a way to actually associate them all together

You do not need Frontier to give you a way, or permission, to create associations between your groups!

 

[Jmanis]

I didn't misinterpret what you said. I disagree with your distinction.

Then there's nothing more to discuss. Your subsequent responses are pointless if you won't accept my distinction.

If you can't agree with the distinction of playing the game and supporting in game factions versus FD's pairing of a player group to a PMF/adopted faction, then you'll wholly misinterpret anything I say. No wonder you're in this situation...

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Honestly, a lot of your comments in your thread here beg to differ on that one, in my opinion.

....

can you be more precise, because as far as I know I've been quite consistent on this topic for some time. You may have misread something.

 

[Misaniovent]

Then there's nothing more to discuss. Your subsequent responses are pointless if you won't accept my distinction.

If you can't agree with the distinction of playing the game and supporting in game factions versus FD's pairing of a player group to a PMF/adopted faction, then you'll wholly misinterpret anything I say.

Not my intention to upset you, though it's clear we are not on the same page.

No wonder you're in this situation...

If I'm in a situation, I'm not aware of it.

 

[_Flin_]

A faction is a faction. There is no difference between Player Named Faction and Player Supported Faction that was created by the Stellar Forge.

Neither has more rights and only lazy people who want fried doves thrown in their mouth say otherwise.

 

[CrazyDiamond]

You make wanting a fried dove thrown in your mouth sound like a bad thing.

Shame.

 

[the100thmonkey]

I beg to differ on that particular topic. Nothing could be more horrible then to track multiple (P)MF and make sure they all are in the clear in the eyes of my Wing and myself. We're currently in control of 16 Systems and after every War or two we're needing quite some time to get things back into the green.

If there was the need for spreadsheets or multitasking more then the one we have it would probably mean a burnout within a very short amount of time of all people in our BGS team. That's not how we roll so to speak.

A great deal of the amount of work the BGS generates has to do with how you set up the sheet - there are all kinds of magic tricks (Jane Turner, for example, really knows her spreadsheet-fu). Of course, it relies on input as there's no workable way (that I know of) to scrape the data directly from EDDN into Google Sheets/Excel Online, but it only takes me ten minutes for more than twenty systems. If you have five guys willing to put in ten minute's work each per tick, you could build and maintain a pretty comprehensive sheet of your faction, its active and pending states, and track BGS inputs very accurately. Doing the same thing for multiple factions is essentially the same after that. The right tools for the job make a massive difference to how much time is spent managing BGS data as opposed to how much time is spent using it.

 

[Jmanis]

Not my intention to upset you, though it's clear we are not on the same page..

Not upset. Just impossible to debate when you aren't willing to see perhaps I'm not the one making "politically convenient" interpretations which are apparently immutable.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

Faction matters nothing. Supporting Group is all that matters, since that's where the Diplomacy or (if Diplomacy fails) Conflicts arise from.

There's plenty of entirely unsupported PMFs out there. One can reliably see Threads popping up about Players (members of other Groups) looking for a POC in order to Communicate.
There's also plenty of normal looking NPC Factions holding a surprising amount of Player support. As opposed to unsupported NPC Factions, stepping onto the wrong feet will cause a reaction and can have lasting implications.

IMHO fairly simple.
The rest is all up to Diplomacy or (worst-case) who has the longer breath or assets to dominate any existing Opposition.

Groups claiming "distant Systems" involving multiple Factions is a touchy issue though.
Typically this is only found with Faction-independent Groups that support i.e. SuperPowers, have linked with PowerPlay Groups or simply support specific Government types.
I take it some previous attempts from Groups to create and lay claim onto "buffer zones" to protect their core space is a contributing factor that makes this specific constellation potentially touchy.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

A great deal of the amount of work the BGS generates has to do with how you set up the sheet - there are all kinds of magic tricks (Jane Turner, for example, really knows her spreadsheet-fu). Of course, it relies on input as there's no workable way (that I know of) to scrape the data directly from EDDN into Google Sheets/Excel Online, but it only takes me ten minutes for more than twenty systems. If you have five guys willing to put in ten minute's work each per tick, you could build and maintain a pretty comprehensive sheet of your faction, its active and pending states, and track BGS inputs very accurately. Doing the same thing for multiple factions is essentially the same after that. The right tools for the job make a massive difference to how much time is spent managing BGS data as opposed to how much time is spent using it.

I have never used 3rd party tools much. One reason is that I'm not really into Google sheets, Excel or other programs at all. Another is that the most reliable information you can get is straight after the tick within the System map itself. To actually use a 3rd party tool someone needs to actively visit each System to update it into a databank (example: EDDB), which then can be used elsewhere (example: Inara.cz). Same applies to when a Station changes ownership; if someone doesn't fly to the specific place that changed hands the data will be incorrect.

We do have quite a few people on the BGS team monitoring our own PMF, but as usual there's more to it. Planning to fill up Systems you want to skip, opening up others you are more interested in and so forth. Plus writing the daily update, giving directions which Systems to support more, which NPC MF you like to support to initiate takeover conflicts etc.

Then add to that the Lore which also helps to spice things up and inspires our Commanders to write about their exploits. In other words, plenty to do for / with just one PMF. No need for more in our case.