Life is challenging enough without trying to make it harder that way. But that's just me.
New Group Starting BGS has some questions.
- Thread starter Karina Ivanovich
- Start date
Life is challenging enough without trying to make it harder that way. But that's just me.
No one is encouraging exclusion of anything.
In regards to PowerPlay, that represents the machinations of the most powerful people to ever bestride humanity. Needless to say, they can take their opinion and shove it.
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.
IMHO you put entitlement on its head. Just because someone granted you a faction in a system you aren't entitled to rule over it. There can be differing views (superpower allegiance, Powerplay ethos, government type, expanded other faction).
In the end it is a dot on the map. It isn't morally any more someone's property who wrote an email than it is someone's who puts in the hours to control it.
Ignoring the fact that a PG has a home system is poor BGS play.
When you attack an Expanded System, the enemy that can see your overwhelming will eventually write off the system and work elsewhere either by agreement or unilaterally.
When you attack a Home System, they dont have the option to go elsewhere, they can fight on forever against your overwhelming force or just give up playing.
If they fight on forever, then the system will be a constant thorn in your side. If they stop playing, then thats down to your moral standpoint.
I guess you dont WANT people to stop playing the game, OR have a constant thorn in your side.
There are of course no hard and fast rules, but IMHO the profitable solution in most cases seems to me to let a PG have its home system.
There's no reason to get at each others throats. Except maybe because a E-peen comparison. Which is something PvP has nailed down much better then the BGS will ever be able to.
PvP is like a 100m sprint, BGS is a marathon.
PvP is like a 100m sprint, BGS is a marathon.
Last edited:
Hello!
We have a young faction. I'm in the politics section. I try to find policy information in articles, forums and other sources on the Internet. At the moment, I could not find an explanation for the following situation.
In the home system, our faction has a state of "elections". The "state of conflict" chart shows the last three days that our faction is winning. In the news on the stations in the home system, the opposite faction says that they dominate the fight with us for two days.
How could that be? What's the meaning of that? What should be the actions of our faction to win the election?
Perhaps you will advise me, a full source of information on political actions of fraction in different political States.
Thank you!
We have a young faction. I'm in the politics section. I try to find policy information in articles, forums and other sources on the Internet. At the moment, I could not find an explanation for the following situation.
In the home system, our faction has a state of "elections". The "state of conflict" chart shows the last three days that our faction is winning. In the news on the stations in the home system, the opposite faction says that they dominate the fight with us for two days.
How could that be? What's the meaning of that? What should be the actions of our faction to win the election?
Perhaps you will advise me, a full source of information on political actions of fraction in different political States.
Thank you!
I believe this means that they've won two days - and if you're winning, presumably you have won more than two? But lots of this information doesn't seem to be working entirely reliably at the moment. The conflict chart is more likely to be reliable.
At this stage, no-one really knows. In general it should be non-combat actions for elections, and combat actions for wars - but the rules on what actions count as which type may well have changed with 3.3.
Well... No. People should have fun, and it's better to get along and work something out.
I just have seen the "Factions own their home system" dogma in action, and it wasn't pretty.
It was even being weaponized against my group.
So I don't buy it. One can always talk and find solutions.
If someone comes to me with a sense of entitlement, is impolite, doesn't want to talk to me, then threatens me, tells lies about me, doesn't keep his word, then attacks me... Well... I won't care about his home system.
One thing I want to point out is the lack of alternative win options in the BGS. I cannot e.g. make an outpost into a station, or care for the economy of that outpost. Neither can I colonize other systems, or build additional stations in my systems.
This would reduce the need to have conflict, when "rules system" is one of the view metrics to measure success (which are basically:
- systems ruled
- systems present
- stations owned
- population ruled)
Last edited:
You mean Frontier Developments, right? I don't know about you, but I heard they're a pretty big deal in the Elite: Dangerous community.
But Dom's earlier comments are pretty much spot on. And again, I'm talking about denying someone their home in perpetuity. That's just not right under any formulation I see.
Why should it be?
Earlier this month some friends of mine were dealing with a larger faction keeping them down. They approached this larger faction and asked them kindly about resolving the situation. Do you know what they were told? 'Take it from us if you can.'
Imperialist dogma in action isn't pretty either.
Last edited:
Hello VVI and welcome!
I would not go with the news in the satation and go with the "state of conflict" chart as that is what counts.
But as Ian said, we believe it means that the enemy won 2 days and you won 3? But we are all learning here...
Just so you know, they take all take a week now (wars and elections) as it is to stop players like my group, who play a lot, from getting it done in just few days and another group who only play once per week not even having a chance to fight back, or even know that it is happening until it is all over.
Unless you are unlucky and have one of the stuck states that just goes on for ever...
Last edited:
Thank you! I know what you mean. My squadron is small, and there are few active players. Small groups deal with different tasks.
Please tell me your opinion: right now our faction is stateless (we are not the controlling faction in the system), the controlling faction without condition, two minor factions at war, why our faction reduces the impact (in tenths of a percent)? I understand that we are doing so few missions, but the down effect is why?
Please tell me your opinion: right now our faction is stateless (we are not the controlling faction in the system), the controlling faction without condition, two minor factions at war, why our faction reduces the impact (in tenths of a percent)? I understand that we are doing so few missions, but the down effect is why?
Hard to answer. Can be any or all of these things:
- bugs
- aborted missions
- someone playing against you (happens from time to time, and is usually not on purpose)
- smuggling against your ports
- murder against you factions ships
- attacks on your bases (like ground missions)
- positive actions benefitting your opponents (e. G. Bounties)
All of these have at some point reduced influence in patches before this one. I don't know how this is possible at the moment, currently my bet is on "Bugs", since we seen some strange movements this patch.
You might want to check what you're people are doing, or have your effort collected somewhere. Too have better data to find out what is up, and try to use your own stations only.
Last edited: