But PMFs are no different to MFs in that regard.
I hate player minor factions
- Thread starter Para Handy
- Start date
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
I see what's wrong with them, but they're trivial compared to the monstrosities of ship NPC names.
You don't have to, they don't mean much to me either. The point is there are PMF names that break immersion.
To be honest I chose the first few NPC factions I supported because I thought their names were funny or cool. I don't have a PMF.
Diamond Dogs is a perfectly reasonable name for an unlawful faction. In fact, it's much better than having hundreds of HIP 1-4000 Crimson groups...
I don't know what CdE Corporation stands for so maybe I am missing the point.
The King of the Potato People sounds a bit silly but considering they control 0 assets it's actually kind of funny.
The fact that @Darkfyre99 confused the origin of Diamond Dogs with a few dozen other possible references already tells me enough, the problem seems to be mostly imagined.
What! Take away my role as the plucky hidden guerrilla, striking heroically from the black and retreating into the darkness to fight another day, struggling manfully (or womanfully) as the invisible underdog to overthrow a tyrannical MF so I can impose my own tyrannical MF?Oh, it would also be nice if BGS influence (at least the kind that can flip system ownership) was Open-only, because then I could "fight back" (literally) in a way I'd find more enjoyable
Where's the fun in that?
Um, I'm pretty sure that David Braben said from teh beginning that a single player or group of players would be able to manipulate the BGS...
I think it was always intended that players shape the galaxy by their actions but not that players use directed efforts. Originally the BGS was a black box and I believe FDEV intended it that way, they wanted us to shape the galaxy more randomly. Most rules where discovered by the Dukes of Mikunn AFAIK and only after that FDEV started to see BGS manipulation as potential gameplay.
Build a nice stealth ship and you can do that in Open
I felt DarkFyre's weren't the best examples of 'immersion-breaking' PMF names, but I've seen a number of others that I'd consider worse - looking at you Teabaggers. Mostly I just laugh at the portentous self-aggrandizement of many of them - too many black legions of doom for my taste. Where are the Taupe Carpenters of Mediocrity huh?
Personally I'll start worrying about PMF names after the complete removal of FCs which happen to be the worst offenders in my opinion.
Happily I can filter out FCs, so I'm able to avoid that particular bane.
Yes, because it's a malleable world where our actions have impact. But it's always meant to just be backdrop... on a smaller scale, if you shoot a laser, you expect it to leave a burn mark. Fire a bullet, expect it to leave an impact area.
It was never intended to be a wholesale strategic game of warfare and conquest as an overlay to the game. That's what Powerplay is for. I'm not endorsing that position... it's simply what it is. I recommend starting with this video. Many of the positions in it are extant today, and not much has changed with respect to the core principles described in it. Yes they do mention the indirect aspects of it, but the emphasis on the BGS being, primarily, the backdrop of the universe, and a malleable one at that, is strong.
But for the core intent of logging on and going "Today I'm going to manipulate the BGS" was, as far as I read from that and every other video FD have put out about the BGS, never the intention.
Rather, you're meant to go:
"I'm going to go trading today!"... which affects the BGS.
"I'm going to go on a crime spree today!"... which affects the BGS.
"I'm going to hunt Thargoids today!"... which affects the BGS.
"I'm going to smuggle illegal goods today!" ... which affects the BGS.
That's a tricky one I agree: I think an average of an hour a day is more than enough but then I would as I rarely have more time than that anyway. However most online games would like us to play them all day if possibile and therefore have no interest in changing the status quo.
To be fair to fdev, as stated above, I don't think fdev really wanted the players to spend hours manipulating the BGS, and I agree with that stance.
Agreed, how some of them made it past the filter I'll never know.
My statement is based on the next few seconds of this:
Specifically the "...rigging the markets..." line.
actually thinking back - when active conflicts in any system was blocking expansion it was much more of a tactical game. and those times when boom was blocking expansions ... i get why fdev got rid of the latter, but the first one would at least make spreading more complicated and slower.
I don't see anything specifically contradicting what babelfisch or I are saying.... though I'd also note that as that's a kickstarter video, sections of it are grossly aspirational... like the ship fitting bit where you can trade off engine vs cargo space.
Tangentially, I'd also argue "rigging the market" isn't even in the game... don't forget the market we have now is substantially pared back from what was originally intended, which would have been vulnerable to "cornering" tactics which I wouldn't really have called "BGS manipulation" in this case.... it's more akin to something like massacre stacking which at its core, isn't a result of bgs manipulation.
I'll admit that I may be wrong and leave it at there...
i read remarks like that quite often and repeatedly, and it wouldn't work with the current BGS mechanics:Oh, it would also be nice if BGS influence (at least the kind that can flip system ownership) was Open-only, because then I could "fight back" (literally) in a way I'd find more enjoyable
- you opponents are running missions for positive influence against your faction
- you attack them and destroy them
1. you have wasted time, as you have not created positive influence for "your" faction, instead busy with hunting
2. you have hurt your controlling factions influence by crimes (interdiction, opening fire, murder)
so, making BGS manipulation open only wouldn't change a thing about that. not without a serious change to the mechanics (for exampel the overpowered effect of positive influence actions), and even that is hard to see in an election.
i keep a list of factions whose supporters come up with that wish /s. because they obviously don't understand much about BGS, and if i ever get into a conflict with them (unlikely), you'll see me with a cobra or clipper running missions (and a million rebuys...) and hoping they waste all day fielding wings to catch me, while my partners actually work the BGS.
I guess 'rigging the markets' isn't exactly the same as manipulating the BGS.
Players invested quite some time to find out how the BGS works and without these efforts no player group would be able to wilfully expand into another system.
I am pretty sure there is an interview somewhere with FDEV explaining how they didn't expect us to 'play' the BGS.