Siding with warring faction

[Red Zephyr]

Can this be changed so that we declare our side in a war (or declare neutrality) when we enter the system instead of each time we enter a CZ?

The main reason I would like to see this change is because currently there are military ships that may interdict you, but they don't do anything unless you are hostile with that faction. If we were to declare for a side before the interdiction, then the encounter would be more meaningful and less annoying. Killing this ship could even grant a bond and not count as murder.

It would also enable another vector for PvP should players meet in a system and work for opposite sides.

Plus we'd already be on a side and wouldn't have to keep selecting when entering a CZ, until we've left the system and re-entered.

Let us declare as we enter the system, and make the whole system a potential war encounter, with only stations being safe (unless already hostile due to faction rep).

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

Good ideas; some additional input:

1. Declaring a side should last for the entire war/civil war, not just entering/exiting the system.

2. Switching sides should carry penalties.

3. Declared players cannot accept missions from enemy factions. Also, prompt undeclared players to declare a side when accepting conflict missions from either side.

4. Military interdictions should only target declared enemies.

5. Avoid popup prompts for declaring; just put it in the transactions panel.

 

[Just Paul]

I like the idea about persistent alignment during a war. But what if there are multiple wars going on in a system and I want to support 1 faction in each war? Right now I'm doing work in one with 3 simultaneous wars.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

I like the idea about persistent alignment during a war. But what if there are multiple wars going on in a system and I want to support 1 faction in each war? Right now I'm doing work in one with 3 simultaneous wars.

Declare neutral, and stay out of Conflict Zones or related missions unless you are prepared to commit to 1 faction across all simultaneous conflicts. Worst-case scenario, wait for one or more of the conflicts to resolve before declaring a side. (You would still be able to do trade and other non-combat missions for any of the factions as a neutral participant.)

I don't see much value in permitting players to act as double- or triple-agents when the game's rendition of diplomacy is so bare-bones.

 

[MK Regular]

Declare neutral, and stay out of Conflict Zones or related missions unless you are prepared to commit to 1 faction across all simultaneous conflicts. Worst-case scenario, wait for one or more of the conflicts to resolve before declaring a side. (You would still be able to do trade and other non-combat missions for any of the factions as a neutral participant.)

I don't see much value in permitting players to act as double- or triple-agents when the game's rendition of diplomacy is so bare-bones.

That seems needlessly arbitrary and restrictive.

Lets say that factions A and B, C and D, E and F are at war with each other (respectively). If you were to ally yourself with faction A, it would make sense for you to marked as hostile for faction B. However, it would not make sense for you to be marked as hostile for factions C through F as they are not at war with faction A.

To give a historical example, think about what wars were taking place in December 1939. Germany was at war with the Allies (see WWII), Finland was at war with the USSR (see Winter War), and Japan was at war with China (see Second Sino-Japanese War), but all 3 conflicts were separate from each other. If a country were to ally themselves with either side of any of these conflicts, it would not be considered an act of war by any of the combatants in the other conflicts (case in point, when the USA declared war on Japan on December 8th 1941, they were not at war with Germany until Hitler declared war 3 days later).

Your concern about players being able to act as double- or triple-agents is completely unfounded as long as wars in ED remain as separate conflicts. If the mechanics behind BGS war are changed such that players could be double-agents, the mechanic behind allying with a faction could easily be overhauled at the same time.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

That seems needlessly arbitrary and restrictive.

Lets say that factions A and B, C and D, E and F are at war with each other (respectively). If you were to ally yourself with faction A, it would make sense for you to marked as hostile for faction B. However, it would not make sense for you to be marked as hostile for factions C through F as they are not at war with faction A.

That is different from what I was talking about. In my scenario, it would be A vs. B, A vs. C, and B vs. C... in which case declaring for A would necessarily make you enemies with both B and C.

In your scenario, there is no issue because the player could declare separately for A/B, C/D, and E/F.

 

[MK Regular]

That is different from what I was talking about. In my scenario, it would be A vs. B, A vs. C, and B vs. C... in which case declaring for A would necessarily make you enemies with both B and C.

In your scenario, there is no issue because the player could declare separately for A/B, C/D, and E/F.

That makes sense. Normally I would consider A vs. B vs. C to be a single war, so I was understandably confused. I don't know if such a scenario is possible as my knowledge of the BGS is limited, but in a situation of A vs. B vs. C (i.e. a single faction being at war with multiple factions simultaneously in the same system) it would make sense to only be able to ally yourself with a single faction.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

That makes sense. Normally I would consider A vs. B vs. C to be a single war, so I was understandably confused. I don't know if such a scenario is possible as my knowledge of the BGS is limited, but in a situation of A vs. B vs. C it would make sense to only be able to ally yourself with a single faction.

Yeah, I've never seen that myself either; that was just my understanding of the other person's hypothetical question.

 

[Red Zephyr]

If the declaration persists for the entire war, how would one switch sides? I would love to have a persistent allegiance in a war state, but declaring upon entering the system I felt would be easier to implement.

For multiple wars in a system, maybe they can all come up as you enter? The prompt can be rescaled to fit two or three wars as needed, or have them tabbed on the chat panel. However they do it, I just want the war state to extend throughout the system and not be something you forget about after leaving the CZ.

Who doesn't just boost and jump after getting interdicted by a military patrol? They are currently a waste of time.

 

[Linnunrata]

I would love to have a persistent allegiance in a war state, but declaring upon entering the system I felt would be easier to implement.

Hehheh, reminds me of entering a pub in North London and being immediately asked "Tottenham or Arsenal?"

 

[Rat Catcher]

Declare neutral, and stay out of Conflict Zones or related missions unless you are prepared to commit to 1 faction across all simultaneous conflicts. Worst-case scenario, wait for one or more of the conflicts to resolve before declaring a side. (You would still be able to do trade and other non-combat missions for any of the factions as a neutral participant.)

I don't see much value in permitting players to act as double- or triple-agents when the game's rendition of diplomacy is so bare-bones.

But if there are multiple wars in a system, between different factions of which one is 'preferred' and the other 2 are in a position to move potential 'enemies' further down in influence rating it makes sense to be 'involved' in all 3 conflicts as one is directly influencing the chosen faction and the the others serve to 'weaken' the position of rival factions.

A good point raised regarding BGS manipulation.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I hate to say it but I think your idea is impractical, mainly down to the multiple war situation.

In any case, after a day or so of CZ fighting you'll eventually become hostile to the opposing faction anyway which is almost the same as what you are suggesting.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

If the declaration persists for the entire war, how would one switch sides? I would love to have a persistent allegiance in a war state, but declaring upon entering the system I felt would be easier to implement.

Ideally through whatever interface is stuck into the navigation panel to avoid using popup messages like in CZs, though I suppose letting players pick CZ massacre missions for enemies with layered warnings and the REQUIREMENT to switch sides for accepting them could also work.

For multiple wars in a system, maybe they can all come up as you enter? The prompt can be rescaled to fit two or three wars as needed, or have them tabbed on the chat panel.

Please, no. While war/civil war dominated systems are fairly rare, systems with conflicts in them are pretty common. The last thing I want is to be pestered with popups if I'm just passing through or running a quick errand.

 

[Red Zephyr]

I hate to say it but I think your idea is impractical, mainly down to the multiple war situation.

In any case, after a day or so of CZ fighting you'll eventually become hostile to the opposing faction anyway which is almost the same as what you are suggesting.

Ideally through whatever interface is stuck into the navigation panel to avoid using popup messages like in CZs, though I suppose letting players pick CZ massacre missions for enemies with layered warnings and the REQUIREMENT to switch sides for accepting them could also work.

I don't think the goal is impractical. Only the interface during multiple wars is a bit cumbersome. They could move the declarations back to a panel option or convert them into mission-like emails that you get upon entering the system. Honestly, this is the aspect I care least about. I just want choosing a side to stay with me after I leave a CZ. Or FDev could just get rid of the useless military patrols that go around interdicting.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

I don't think the goal is impractical. Only the interface during multiple wars is a bit cumbersome. They could move the declarations back to a panel option or convert them into mission-like emails that you get upon entering the system. Honestly, this is the aspect I care least about. I just want choosing a side to stay with me after I leave a CZ. Or FDev could just get rid of the useless military patrols that go around interdicting.

If you don't care about the details then they shouldn't matter, right? The only thing I would care to avoid with this suggestion is having tons of popups when I fully intend to just ignore the conflict altogether.

No chat popups, no emails that I will compulsively need to delete. Wouldn't hurt to have military patrols ignore undeclared pilots either.

 

[Red Zephyr]

No chat popups, no emails that I will compulsively need to delete. Wouldn't hurt to have military patrols ignore undeclared pilots either.

I've never found these emails or conflict popups to be intrusive or annoying. It's not like there is much to do in supercruise. But I understand if you and others would not like it. So let's work this out.

Would one of these options be acceptable?

A) A declaration popup occurs once you enter the conflict region in supercruise, rather than when you enter the system. Your choice sticks until you leave the system.

B) A popup occurs in supercruise only once you have targeted a CZ in your navigation panel for the first time after entering the system.

C) No popups. Choosing a side is moved to the Contacts panel, where a CZ can be selected and a side can be chosen on the right column of the panel where docking requests are made.

D) Leave it as it is now, but only make the declaration the first time you enter a CZ. That choice sticks until you leave the system.

 

[fu9ar]

Nah. You are all overthinking it.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

I've never found these emails or conflict popups to be intrusive or annoying. It's not like there is much to do in supercruise. But I understand if you and others would not like it. So let's work this out.

Thank you very much for your empathy and consideration!

Would one of these options be acceptable?

A) A declaration popup occurs once you enter the conflict region in supercruise, rather than when you enter the system. Your choice sticks until you leave the system.

B) A popup occurs in supercruise only once you have targeted a CZ in your navigation panel for the first time after entering the system.

C) No popups. Choosing a side is moved to the Contacts panel, where a CZ can be selected and a side can be chosen on the right column of the panel where docking requests are made.

D) Leave it as it is now, but only make the declaration the first time you enter a CZ. That choice sticks until you leave the system.

Any of these would resolve my concerns completely; they are all acceptable.

 

[Riverside]

I've never found these emails or conflict popups to be intrusive or annoying. It's not like there is much to do in supercruise. But I understand if you and others would not like it. So let's work this out.

Would one of these options be acceptable?

A) A declaration popup occurs once you enter the conflict region in supercruise, rather than when you enter the system. Your choice sticks until you leave the system.

B) A popup occurs in supercruise only once you have targeted a CZ in your navigation panel for the first time after entering the system.

C) No popups. Choosing a side is moved to the Contacts panel, where a CZ can be selected and a side can be chosen on the right column of the panel where docking requests are made.

D) Leave it as it is now, but only make the declaration the first time you enter a CZ. That choice sticks until you leave the system.

I like option D. There would still need to be a way to change (assuming the player selects the wrong side by mistake), jumping out & back in should be enough to be a QoL improvement over the current method of selecting each time but with the previously chosen faction highlighted.

I'd also like to see which factions are at war in a CZ from normal space to make it easier to select an appropriate destination from the dock or another CZ.

 

[CMDR GRAEME COWELL]

Siding with faction a in their beef with b but siding with c vs a in the second simultaneous conflict will not sit well with any of the participants