Looking forward to watching this one.
- what's your aim when it comes to balancing the desire of "people playing the BGS" to have a reasonably predictable and controllable system, with the desire of "people living in the BGS" to have interesting things happen around them?
- is happiness going to be used for anything in future?
- will all BGS properties detectable in game be available through the journal as well in future? (e.g. local news articles, traffic reports) Or is there a reason that they're not beyond "we haven't implemented it yet"? (Fine, if so - I'll stop asking...)
- the original pre-release design envisaged a larger role for the BGS in terms of events like station construction, population movements, etc. Is this still on the roadmap somewhere?
1. can we reintroduce or find a replacement for blocking states as a means to introduce strategic planning and complexity as a means to control very large factions?
The original expansion system proposed for 3.3 would have done fine for that; that is, to expand, all systems needed to have "high influence and happiness", whatever that meant. I think 99% of the problem of runaway expansion is due to this.[1]
Old BGS meant expansion couldn't go pending if you were in conflict, as conflict was global. With conflict becoming a state local to the system for a given faction, that means conflict is no longer a blocker to expansion in some other rando system, and this is the crux of the problem; the intersection of 3.3 mechanics with pre-3.3 mechanics.
As long as we're not talking about conflict in a single system becoming a global effect again, because especially in the current system, that would be an absolutely terrible idea (The original global conflict state wasn't great either). Which I guess neatly leads to another question:
- Any ETA on implementing the originally intended expansion mechanics? There's big problems with unchecked expansion caused by using the pre-3.3 expansion mechanics in current BGS.
[1] some tangential discussion... I think "high influence" being over 75% everywhere wouldn't be great... but perhaps "Elated" and at least 50-60% across all systems? Or even 60% averaged across all systems?
Yeah, I wasn't specifying the route - just the outcome, though in my head it did make some sense to suggest that you could either fight in a conflict or expand, but not do both
i want more/some Dredgers in game!I assume its BGS related, but whatever happened to this:
Hooray for Dav \o/
Hooray for lab-coats \o/
Hooray for cheeky grins \o/
Hooray for Flimley \o/
Hooray for everything \o/
have a check-box next to each system to freeze/un-freeze expansions
have another check-box next to each system to retreat from the system after the next 'tick'
G'day Dav,
I have a question regarding Squadrons. Could FDev possibly implement a way for Squadrons to have more involvement and control over their PMF or adopted faction? For example, on the Squadron Allegiance page:
have a check-box next to each system to freeze/un-freeze expansions
have another check-box next to each system to retreat from the system after the next 'tick'
Your line of thinking does make some sense IRT NPC factions, and highlights some more shortcomings in the PMF - Squadron relationship. This should also be fixed/improved, because the relationship should be logical (it's illogical to think you are not part of your PMF)...That couldn't work because any number of squadrons can pledge to a single faction, and pledging confers no ownership of that faction (because... short version... you aren't even part of that faction). It'd also break several fundamental concepts such as the fact you aren't part of that faction.... and that NPC factions present to players as autonomous bodies who act independently. Squadrons are essentially paramilitary forces, and have no authority within a faction, and i think it's important to keep it that way to maintain the integrity of the BGS's function of being that living, breathing universe.
Hooray for all that !Hooray for Dav \o/
Hooray for lab-coats \o/
Hooray for cheeky grins \o/
Hooray for Flimley \o/
Hooray for everything \o/
I very strongly disagree with your assertion that there's any differences between NPC and PMF factions, other than the fact FD let players name one. But there's plenty of threads over on the BGS forum where we can debate that.Your line of thinking does make some sense IRT NPC factions, and highlights some more shortcomings in the PMF - Squadron relationship. This should also be fixed/improved, because the relationship should be logical (it's illogical to think you are not part of your PMF)...