Tangible benefits to Squadrons and Minor Factions holding territory

[ZomB_Tassadar]

My suggestion here requires no new game assets beyond maybe GUI elements.

The suggestions are to drive a greater desire for players to want to be in a squadron and participate in action related to their minor faction that are more then just Role Play.
These suggestions are open to being tweaked its more to float the idea where I am going with this.

After participating in expanding a past minor faction in to all neighbouring systems, I asked myself why the eff was I even bothering. The gains were superficial and nor were they unique to that faction.
I could push my rep up with any number of factions and achieve the same. I was asking what could make this squadron stuff and minor factions worth while, what could make this system desirable even enviable to other squadrons.

So if your Minor faction has become the controlling faction of the system there should be real tangible gains
Tier 1 Influence when minor faction becomes controlling faction (bonuses become active after 1 week of control)
+10% base improvement to mining refine rates, the lore excuse can be improved metallurgy and geological studies of the system.
+10% to ship and on foot bounty vouchers, the excuse can be that the squadron act as a police and get paid better by controlling faction.
-10% to security response time to squadron members coming under attack
+1 to the ranks of all lowest rank foot soldiers at bases controlled by your minor faction (when not in conflict zone)
+1 to quantity for raw mats gathering, can use the same excuse as that for refine rates above

Tier 2 Influence when the minor faction has added 3 more systems to list of controlled systems (and has at least 4 weeks tenure at HQ system)
additional +3% more base improvement to mining refine rates
additional +3% more to ship and on foot bounty vouchers
further -3% off security response time to squadron member coming under fire
-50% off rebuy when ship lost in space controlled by minor factions and rebuy location is also in space controlled by minor faction.

Tier 3 Influence when the minor faction has had 4 total system controlled for 12 weeks
additional +3% more base improvement to mining refine rates
additional +3% more to ship and on foot bounty vouchers
further -3% off security response time to squadron member coming under fire

Separate variables
+2% refine refine rate, when pristine rings present
-2% security response, when squadron owned carrier present (bonus caps at 1 carrier so no stacking)

Exploration bonuses
-50% on penalty cashing in universal cartographics and genomics data at squadron owned carrier where carrier has not moved in 24 hours
+10 LY When using jumponium boosted jump when jumping from within vicinity of the squadron owned carrier (eg under 10km)

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Bit harsh on any group who got flattened by a larger group and has no chance of regaining control of their system.

Anyway, I thought the point of controlling more systems was controlling more systems. Isn't that how you win BGS?

 

[Screemonster]

The last thing this game needs is even more incentive for the same few dozen factions to blob out and turn the bubble into a homogenous mass.

 

[Danieros]

For squadrons this sounds really cool but I think it could fit better with some type of level up system for the squadron and for the commander within the squadron - then you could acquire these benefits through the level up perks. Otherwise it is just too easy to create/dismantle squadrons whenever suitable as the creation cost and allied reputation are requirements that can be achieved within minutes.

For the minor factions themselves I think the rewards should come from the BGS itself - so the positive faction states and whatever benefits they bring should be already the reward, such as the better prices that a boom can offer.

 

[DemiserofD]

The last thing this game needs is even more incentive for the same few dozen factions to blob out and turn the bubble into a homogenous mass.

Agreed. I would much prefer BGS factions that are small and focused on specific functions. A mining consortium, for example, that only wants to expand to systems with good rings, or a bounty hunters guild that operates near a bunch of pirate factions, or pirate factions that operate near traders.

In my ideal world, BGS factions would be fighting over the BEST systems, and actively allowing lower-quality systems to lapse, where new factions could spring up and expand. If a BGS faction is taking a lot of systems, it should be punished and require significant and expensive effort to maintain.

 

[Semivivus]

...your minor faction...

What is the name of "your" minor faction?

This is my minor faction now.

 

[metatheurgist]

This is what I hate about PMFs. They try to make the game all about them. Never shoulda been a thing.

 

[Screemonster]

In my ideal world, BGS factions would be fighting over the BEST systems, and actively allowing lower-quality systems to lapse, where new factions could spring up and expand. If a BGS faction is taking a lot of systems, it should be punished and require significant and expensive effort to maintain.

You mean like how things used to be before states became per-system instead of faction-wide, and expanding willy-nilly into systems that are a problem to maintain was something that most player groups actively avoided lest they end up saddled with constant conflicts kicking off there and jamming up their entire empire?

 

[DemiserofD]

You mean like how things used to be before states became per-system instead of faction-wide, and expanding willy-nilly into systems that are a problem to maintain was something that most player groups actively avoided lest they end up saddled with constant conflicts kicking off there and jamming up their entire empire?

Kinda. I can see the disadvantages of that too, though. It would stink if you accidentally expand, only to get penalized across your entire faction.

 

[Jmanis]

Holy heck no.

 

[Danieros]

Folks who grew communities and focused their gameplay for the past half a decade to grow and support a minor faction do get to control huge amounts of systems. No idea why this is a problem

 

[Fake Newts]

It would be nice if the game had better faction systems on every level, for example making superpower allegiance actually significant rather than a mileage counter, bringing together aspects of factions, squadrons and powerplay in a way that brought tangible stakes, logical limitations and generated fun stories between players... However that ship has sailed at this point. We have to make do with the disparate and at times nonsensical scraps that're available.

If your suggestion were implemented, without much more radical fundamental reworks, players running a squadron who didn't care about the BGS (most squadrons don't) would just pledge allegiance to the biggest MF in their region to benefit from all the bonuses. This would strengthen the extant 'big players' rather than give incentives for people to make their own group or support an underdog.

Most players running PMFs are intrinsically motivated to support them, and while I agree games are at their best when intrinsic and extrinsic motivations gel together... Elite has never been good at that (it is in fact quite spectacularly poorly designed in this regard in particular).

This is what I hate about PMFs. They try to make the game all about them. Never shoulda been a thing.

What exactly do you mean by this? Seems like a reaction that needs more context. 'They try to make the game all about them'? Wouldn't the same thing apply to anyone making a suggestion about an area of the game they care about that you don't? As mentioned above, I don't think the OPs suggestion would work with the game as-is, however PMFs are functionally no different to regular MFs so it's difficult to see how their existence is detrimental to you personally as things stand. Unless you're one of those who gets fussy about irreverent names, I guess.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

What exactly do you mean by this? Seems like a reaction that needs more context.

Previous threads (yes, that's plural) where a set of BGS players asked FDev to feed them data on who was working against them in 'their' systems so they counter what they were doing and be judge and jury on whether they were cheating or not won't have helped that perception.

 

[Fake Newts]

Previous threads (yes, that's plural) where a set of BGS players asked FDev to feed them data on who was working against them in 'their' systems so they counter what they were doing and be judge and jury on whether they were cheating or not won't have helped that perception.

Seems like if you're going to call for the removal of a whole segment of the game based on a few individuals whose posting leaves something to be desired there wouldn't be much game left. I find irritating opinions are to be found in every subsection of this game's community, frankly.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Seems like if you're going to call for the removal of a whole segment of the game based on a few individuals whose posting leaves something to be desired there wouldn't be much game left. I find irritating opinions are to be found in every subsection of this game's community, frankly.

I'm not asking for anything to be removed. Wrong quote?

 

[Fake Newts]

You replied to my reply to another poster, I'm referring to that original quote.

 

[Screemonster]

Previous threads (yes, that's plural) where a set of BGS players asked FDev to feed them data on who was working against them in 'their' systems so they counter what they were doing and be judge and jury on whether they were cheating or not won't have helped that perception.

Don't forget the group that systematically retreated a permit-giving faction to block off new players from obtaining the permit because they didn't like that people were pushing that faction's influence up, then pitched a tantrum when fdev put in a megaship to let people get the permit instead because it's their space, and accused anyone who disagreed with the notion that some random player group gets to decide whether a permit is accessible or not (and deny game content to other players) of being "racist against russians".

 

[Dillon Fallon]

You replied to my reply to another poster, I'm referring to that original quote.

OK, but you asked a question and I answered. There is a perception of entitlement in some BGS groups and that some players who support a faction believe they should have some special treatment. Like it or not, it's there and people's opinions will reflect that. That's your context.

 

[Fake Newts]

you asked a question and I answered. There is a perception of entitlement in some BGS groups and that some players who support a faction believe they should have some special treatment. Like it or not, it's there and people's opinions will reflect that. That's your context.

I understand that, I'm saying it isn't a good reason to call for the removal of faction mechanics... I'm going to level with you, Dillon, my original post was made while aware of the probable context, I was asking them to justify their kneejerk comment simply because I knew it would be difficult for them to do.

A sense of ownership and entitlement is to be expected in MMOs that allow player group mechanics and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, some people might make salty posts on a forum somewhere (when do they ever not, in this game especially?) if it's just a side effect of the healthy competition that makes these mechanics interesting, it doesn't matter. To be truly dynamic a multiplayer gameworld needs stakes, cooperation and competition, otherwise nobody cares.

 

[Screemonster]

Kinda. I can see the disadvantages of that too, though. It would stink if you accidentally expand, only to get penalized across your entire faction.

Yeah, I'm not saying universal states were good, it kinda sucked when a war in one system shut off your access to missions and trade everywhere - I know a couple of factions that deliberately used elections when under attack to render themselves immune to murder which was seriously OP at the time, along with some of the other groups deliberately UA bombing themselves in backwater systems in order to jam up the BGS in those systems.

Unfortunately (as with so many things) FDev didn't finish the job. The patch notes back then said that the plan was for expansions to be triggered by high happiness across the entire faction, but they're still triggered by a system passing 75% influence, so now there's absolutely no downside or limiting factor on a faction just constantly spamming expansions from a lowpop system.

If we'd got the expansion trigger based on some faction-wide stat, then each successive system would make it harder and harder to reach the expansion threshold and spamming expansions then not bothering to maintain them wouldn't be as much of an issue as it is. You'd have to actually maintain your massive empire, even consider retreating from systems that are unfavourable to maintain.

In other words, it'd actually require some amount of thought and planning and we all know the playerbase won't tolerate that.