Hey FDEV, What percentage of players belong to a PMF?

[Chaparral]

I guess my predisposition about personal progress toward measurable goals, quantifiable contributions, and individual accountability has left me quite puzzled about factions and the BGS.

Given that there is no accountability about pmf continuing membership, I really do not understand the bottleneck about creating one, provided you are not an original member of a previously established pmf.

I absolutely agree that a player working for his or her own ends is not playing the BGS cogently.

My experience is with guilds in other MMOs and there were fairly transparent mechanics about how different types of activities contributed to standings - with specific reward structures articulated.

I am more than a little curious why a developer would create a ubiquitous mechanic that has such drastic impacts on casual game play, yet have its operation so walled off from the individual player.

Perhaps it is the American distaste for secret societies and cabals of insiders that has me so triggered about the whole thing.

I truly enjoy so much about this game, but the PMF/BGS thing has me flat out angry. From my point of view, it really feels like a big insult from FDEV to the individual player.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My experience is with guilds in other MMOs and there were fairly transparent mechanics about how different types of activities contributed to standings - with specific reward structures articulated.

That may be the root of the issue - Frontier have not chosen to go down the guild trope route with their game - and, while Squadrons would appear to satisfy the group management and communication requirement, they lack what might be considered by some to be "required" features for them to be considered to be guilds.

 

[WR3ND]

"Belong" seems like such a strange term to me in this context. There are a few I've helped out in the game on a somewhat consistent basis. In general I'm much more of a lone wolf player though.

 

[Jmanis]

0

Nobody belongs to a PMF. Not even when we get squadrons which can affiliate to a PMF. You're a member of a squadron then, not the faction.

EDIT: Too many people conflate the fact they can support a faction with ownership or membership of that faction. No such concept exists. We're all Independent Pilots Federation Commanders, who lend our support to factions for whatever reason we care to.

Anything else is fantasy.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

0

Nobody belongs to a PMF. Not even when we get squadrons which can affiliate to a PMF. You're a member of a squadron then, not the faction.

EDIT: Too many people conflate the fact they can support a faction with ownership or membership of that faction. No such concept exists. We're all Independent Pilots Federation Commanders, who lend our support to factions for whatever reason we care to.

Anything else is fantasy.

Indeed. And you get player groups which don't have their "own" faction but work the BGS for various NPC factions, or which just do their own non-BGS thing. Conversely plenty of individuals and smaller groups who can't get an official PMF and don't expect to ever be big enough will adopt an NPC faction.

I find it so curious that this core game feature - playing the BGS - has no individual player accountability mechanic whatsoever.

This all seems like intentionally obscure voodoo that severely impacts the playability of the game, and the devs have no means to know if it's 5%, 25% or 90% of the player base are cogently involved in the BGS.

I would say the BGS was a core game feature, but that playing it with a specific goal wasn't (people can, and Frontier support that with things like PMF creation, but it's not what it's "for"). The 3.3 reforms of the BGS will I think make it more interesting for players passing through, allow better integration of "events" like the new Thargoid Incursion state, and deal with some oddities caused by extremely big factions - but are probably at best neutral for a lot of major BGS-playing groups.

From that point of view it doesn't matter whether people are actively trying to influence it, or just having it happen to them as they go along, and I'm not sure there'd be any plausible way to tell the difference anyway.

 

[Jmanis]

I find it so curious that this core game feature - playing the BGS - has no individual player accountability mechanic whatsoever.

I would say the BGS was a core game feature, but that playing it with a specific goal wasn't (people can, and Frontier support that with things like PMF creation, but it's not what it's "for"). The 3.3 reforms of the BGS will I think make it more interesting for players passing through, allow better integration of "events" like the new Thargoid Incursion state, and deal with some oddities caused by extremely big factions - but are probably at best neutral for a lot of major BGS-playing groups.

From that point of view it doesn't matter whether people are actively trying to influence it, or just having it happen to them as they go along, and I'm not sure there'd be any plausible way to tell the difference anyway.

I'd add it's because the BGS has never been about the individual; it's all about the living, breathing, reactive universe.

I posted a thread a while back on the BGS forum with the question "If you could ask for it, would you let frontier invade your system with Thargoids?"

Many were opposed to it, because fundamentally we've all got it stuck in our heads that the existence of the BGS is to support an overarching strategy game for players. That underpins all the "Make BGS Open Only" mentality we've been seeing. But again, that's not what the BGS is. It's just there to simulate a living, breathing universe, and thats why there *are* imbalances and there *are* easier or harder things to do, because it's not meant to be competitive, only mutable and volatile.

There's also some consternation about how 3.3's changes deliberately make it harder for players supporting large PMFs. Combining that with the Thargoid Invasion state, and every other thing FD has ever said about the BGS just helps reinforce the fact that the BGS is *meant* to fluctuate, and players are *not* meant to rule indirectly through factions.

By all means, players can and should get out there and support factions for whatever reason, but it needs to be understood that that aspect is *not* core gameplay.

Even the new Squadron Leaderboard for Political outcomes reflects this. The leader of that competition is not the Squadron affiliated with the biggest faction, but the squadron who does the most work to help their affiliated faction... and that faction could be tiny.

It's a bit like gambling on election outcomes. People are free to go out and wager on which political party is for whatever country is going to win it's next election. But that doesn't mean elections exist to facilitate gambling... they exist to elect the countries next leaders. Gambling on the outcome is just a secondary effect.

 

[Schlack]

I can answer with absolute certainty:

0%

No player "belongs" to any faction, Player-Named or otherwise.

Even Squadrons do not "belong" to any faction.

They merely support them.

This is the correct answer based on the game design. This is of course different from the sense of ownership people have, groups organisational structures and inter group diplomacy which are not really supported by the game.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

This is the correct answer based on the game design. This is of course different from the sense of ownership people have, groups organisational structures and inter group diplomacy which are not really supported by the game.

What people sense and what the reality of the situation is do not always agree.
Some sense they are entitled to the benefits of hard work while never have lifted a finger to improve themselves.
Some sense that because they differ from the median that everyone should embrace that difference without exception.
The reality is they are wrong. Not for their sensing but for their expectations.