Well, everyone has the right to defend "his/her" systems, home system or not. Conflicts are part of the game.
New Group Starting BGS has some questions.
- Thread starter Karina Ivanovich
- Start date
Well, everyone has the right to defend "his/her" systems, home system or not. Conflicts are part of the game.
Right - but do you see the difference in attacking a home system (a very normal and wildly accepted strategy) and seeking to deny (or occupy, if you will) a home system in perpetuity?
Karina and her group did a great job in selecting their system, and put in substantially more thought into it than, I am sorry to say, the majority of PMFs we've encountered along the way. We tend to work things out, but it can often be a tough road there, when some PMFs don't even know that there are large player groups or how to read the galaxy map or use eddb.io or inara.cz in their prep work. The data sheets in my sig are one way we try to help bring more understanding about the BGS and the player supported factions in the bubble, as that is hard to get from within the game. We want groups to choose wisely, so they can enjoy BGS play as much as we do.
We've moved on a bit to a more general discussion. And if I understand you correctly, we agree that there is no difference between NPC or PMF factions in the BGS formally and mechanically. And since players have supported NPC and PMF factions (since when the latter became available) for four years now, and a good number of PMF factions have been abandoned, we tend to talk about player supported factions, whether they are PMF or not, officially registered with Frontier or not. This is why we always talk about looking for "signs of life" and how many systems the faction controls and is present in. In most areas, outside of mission grinding and popular systems, if the faction is in 3+ systems and controls 2, it is almost certainly player supported or was in the past.
We treat any player or player group we run into equally and respectfully whether they are a PMF or support an NPC faction.
As far your last sentence, I agree with you - but it had no relation to the specific example the thread was started with.
Last edited:
Well... I'm agree with Mangal Oemie thoughts too.
I think it's not a humiliation at all. It is the truth.
I cannot get why usually people understand an in game conflict as something "bad". It is a game! And BGS control (I think) wasn't "created" for just having a name in game and expand and expand, and expand... freely and without any oposition. Like if we were alone in the bubble.
It was created to give players a role playing reason to interact one each others and to have fun through conflict, alliance...
To have a faction and avoid contact with other factions in anyway is a nonsense.
So yes... if you want a system, fight and work for it. By war, diplomacy, data investigation... whatever you need. That's what I love about BGS control. That is its "soul".
If you just want to do missions with your group alone and watch a number rising with nobody telling you that you are bothering some other groups or without any fight, then you don't want to play BGS.
Go and run missions, or do bounty hunting. Whatever... you don't need a faction for that.
Just my opinion.
Last edited:
Well, there are differences. But then I do not think that any faction of any kind has any right to rule a system, regardless of whether it is the home system or not.
For every homesystem there are at least 2 and usually 4-6 factions that do not rule it.
Your question seems easy, but it isnt.
- It gets different answers in Barcelona and Madrid, Brussels and London, London and Belfast, Berlin and Munich, Moscow and Grosny, Moscow and Kiev, or Moscow and Kaliningrad.
- If Peter Peterson is in group X and thinks: Hey, if i do a PMF right next to group Z that we do not like, and Hans Hansen does the same with by creating group Y, and Berta Bertasdottir, Agnes Agnesdottir and Fred Blunt do the same with groups A, B and C, we will then claim "Hey Z, you cant expand into our systems, we are PMFs and this is our home system..." ... Well, i guess then group Z will probably not honor any "special PMF rights" and stay where they are, and rightly so.
- Same is true for enemy super power factions in other super power faction territory. Or by factions opposed to a powerplay ethos. Or by groups claiming systems from other groups that they have spend hundreds of hours to conquer, defend, build, write lore about, do podcasts, do community goals, etc.
So there really is no easy answers to this complicated question, apart from: you either solve any differences over the control of virtual territory by talking to each other, or playing the game against each other. And the last case will lead to the normative power of the factual.
Who controls the system controls the system.
Last edited:
I tend to use INARA and we are fortunate enough to have a member who REALLY understands all of what that software has to offer, but INARA will tell us what is or is not a player minor faction.
I do not have much sympathy with any so called human group who has fully 'adopted' an NPC group. To me they are being lazy and possibly looking for one of these minor factions that has spread its influence into several systems thereby making life easy for themselves. Forget all the hardwork surrounding any application to Frontier, forget any hardwork in building up your home system and forget any work involving expansion, lets simply all adopt NPC factions and then come up wish some lame excuse about wanting to rename a faction.
Yes, sadly LOTS of player groups have stopped playing the game and by crikey, yes lots of our groups have shrunk, but that is a different story. A player group is a player group and an NPC group is there for us to possibly use if the needs arises?? (ouch)
I assume that your assumption is not based on any actual evidence and that you have no memory of the groups that managed NPC factions in the early days and called for FD to create PMFs to fill a growing need. That could amount to four years' work.
A thought from a so-called human.
Last edited:
Been around since beta and whilst I was in that first batch that got a system with the main station, plus 80%, I did leave that faction and start afresh with that awful, horrible delay in actually getting a system of our own. unfortunately for me I was under the impression that I would be treated just like those that were given that main station, but nope as you may well know, we simply got 8% influence with no station. Bottom line is been there and done the hard miles. So I guess to answer your post, the only evidence i have is my own experiences and that second question you mention, is a Big YES, I do have both the memory and experience. The experience is probably acrued by the hours put into this game and looking at the CODEX that is just over 59weeks which sadly is an awful long time.
I respect your thoughts but they are most definitely of no relevance to my daft self
NPC groups are fair game and for me human groups are to be respected until such time as I have cause to not respect them.
Player Faction - Max Respect - I have no desire to wee on their strawberries unless they are weeing on mine, there is plenty of fun to be had for all. We have lots of systems, letting them have 1 is no skin off my nose (unless its a doozy).
Player Supported NPC Faction - Some Respect - I appreciate the History, but you could always have gone to EDDB/Inara and set the Faction to Player Owned, its all manually entered data. Just dont get in our way
Player Supported Group of Factions - Less Respect - Get Lost, you are just being greedy. OTOH, it probably means you are a big group, so.... lets play nice.
Player Supported NPC Faction - Some Respect - I appreciate the History, but you could always have gone to EDDB/Inara and set the Faction to Player Owned, its all manually entered data. Just dont get in our way
Player Supported Group of Factions - Less Respect - Get Lost, you are just being greedy. OTOH, it probably means you are a big group, so.... lets play nice.
But that just makes your statement even less comprehensible. You know that many groups began by supporting NPC factions and continue to do so - groups that many of the contributors to this thread belong.
But I find many fundamentalist views incomprehensible.
Realistically, there is no difference between player-made factions and NPC factions: both get invested with the same amount of time and effort so surely players of all stripes deserve equal respect because there is no difference. Ownership of a faction is an illusion.
But this is just reviving an old theme in an argument that can have no solution.
But I find many fundamentalist views incomprehensible.
Realistically, there is no difference between player-made factions and NPC factions: both get invested with the same amount of time and effort so surely players of all stripes deserve equal respect because there is no difference. Ownership of a faction is an illusion.
But this is just reviving an old theme in an argument that can have no solution.
Last edited:
First off,
Apologies for editing your post but this part is something I feel VERY strongly about.
An NPC faction can very easily be seen in anything up to and maybe even beyond ten systems. all of which might have a very nice selection of opportunities.
How long do you think it would take a new group just starting out with no ownership of any station but in the system of their choice to get that number of attractive systems and how much work would it take??
Forget any awful delay in acquiring their own system, but trust me, expanding into the exact system of choice takes a lot of work and effort. (getting the nearest available system is easier)
Just deciding to 'support' faction x, is to me simply a lazy and very easy way of getting what you want with the least amount of work.
apologies if this sounds rather blunt, but I have much respect for my fellow, hardworking human factions.
Last edited:
I agree with this 100%. Well said.
Well that's a little unfair on those of us whose interest range beyond a single faction. AEDC has been around since (before) launch, and the focus was always on boosting the Alliance via the BGS. We dont consider all those factions "ours" but we do have an interest in all of them to a greater or lesser extent of course. We have more than one primary faction, in fact to limit ourselves to one would be working directly against our basic ethos.
We do have simple diplomatic principles with our non alliance neighbours new and old, set borders, expand away, don't touch each other's stuff.
Last edited:
Well, I'm again going to ask you to furnish evidence that this happens - and perhaps evidence of a rule that players can blaze their own trails as long as they don't support a faction that has previously been supported by players to the extent that the faction has expanded.
I know my very small group started off with a single faction and a single station. After four years we were comfortably managing three factions holding most stations in more than thirty systems. We weren't alone in following such a trajectory.
Also Walter2 is nice and if he finds out a player faction is alive in his "zone of influence" then he is happy to let them control their home.
He has done this for my friends faction.
+1 rep inbound for Walter2
I think you're missing something. (Even apart from the fact that many BGS groups started with NPC factions well before PMFs even existed, which others have mentioned as well)
Of all the groups and players I know in the BGS that support an NPC faction, they all started from nothing. Not with a faction that was already big. Some of the biggest NPC factions (without benefiting from mission running for permits or otherwise like Alioth Independents) have been player supported for years (and are typically marked as such in eddb.io, although we've seen rogue actions where people removed the PMF flag from them as they aren't "FD Official" PMFs).
I know of a few instances where people took over a larger faction that their friends or allied group had been building up over time.
I don't think we have ever seen much 'opportunism' from NPC faction supporters by picking factions that gave them an initial advantage. Nevertheless, even if that is the case, each faction, PMF or NPC, can at any time be supported or worked against by any player in the game. That's now even a bullet in the PMF creation tool.
In addition - while FD doesn't actually seem to check this - the requirement of 10 players to create a PMF can be prohibitive to smaller groups and individual CMDRs who want to play the BGS. I think it is a very slippery slope to make any claims about one type of BGS play being more legitimate than the other.
The only difference between NPC factions and PMFs are that PMFs have a name chosen by a CMDR or player group and the NPC faction didn't, and that PMFs have a protection that no other PMFs can be inserted into their territory. If anything, that puts NPC faction BGS players at a disadvantage.
If these 4-6 factions are not backed by members of the Pilots Federation, who cares? They're nothing without us anyway.
And you're right in a sense that no one has a right to rule a system simply because yes, it does take work to take and manage a system. But no one is entitled to deny folks their home either. In fact, I consider that a praiseworthy moral position. My line in the sand, so to speak.
OP, thanks for letting this general discussion evolve but please do keep us posted if you need help or have questions.
As I already mentioned a few times, playing the BGS is equal to build castles in the sand. It can get to be a real work of art, but it'll dissolve over time again.
Also, as long as there is communication and mutual respect involved, things can be worked out. Unless one side is too stubborn or ignorant, then things can get rather heated.
Finally, with the new BGS mechanics implemented (speaking about the Gridlock feature currently) the question about letting either a PMF or MF go into Expansion / Retreat is a rather moot point. The time needed has been considerably extended with 3.3.
Whomever starts from scratch from here on out will take much longer to grow to a respectable size. Taking over all assets in one System can be a task of several months depending on the population density and possible opposition trying to mess with the effort.
And the rest who has many Systems already will be busy to keep their dominance in these Systems, trying to fight elongated conflicts. So technically there be no real BGS conflicts because everyone is busy trying to get their stuff done (or taking a vacation from it all).
Also, as long as there is communication and mutual respect involved, things can be worked out. Unless one side is too stubborn or ignorant, then things can get rather heated.
Finally, with the new BGS mechanics implemented (speaking about the Gridlock feature currently) the question about letting either a PMF or MF go into Expansion / Retreat is a rather moot point. The time needed has been considerably extended with 3.3.
Whomever starts from scratch from here on out will take much longer to grow to a respectable size. Taking over all assets in one System can be a task of several months depending on the population density and possible opposition trying to mess with the effort.
And the rest who has many Systems already will be busy to keep their dominance in these Systems, trying to fight elongated conflicts. So technically there be no real BGS conflicts because everyone is busy trying to get their stuff done (or taking a vacation from it all).
Well there are differing views on the matter. Take powerplay implications for instance. Would a powerplay focused BGS have a vaild reason for preventing a PMF taking its home system for favourable/unfavourable triggers? One could convincingly argue that they would. It is these kinds of inherent conflicts that provide the basis for emergent gameplay - such as player war, development of new tactics and strategies, espionage, diplomacy, victory, defeat, triumph, disaster, revenge!!
Why one would want to exclude all that fun from the game is something of a mystery to me.