Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: Locating Parents of 'Orphan' Player Factions

  1. #16
    Originally Posted by Jmanis View Post (Source)
    If it's the latter, player-submitted CGs in their current form *cannot* exist; to consider their impact on the BGS; that is:
    - CGs which let PMFs build stations and gain control of unpopulated systems
    - CGs which change properties of a station or system
    - CGs which arbitrarily start a war which may flip control of a system
    Interestingly, they've said that for Colonia - where the PMFs really are packed together - player-submitted CGs won't be allowed to request dockable assets, just cosmetic things like installations and megaships.

    They seem to be aware of the potential for interference elsewhere, as well.

  2. #17
    Why can't it be both? I play the BGS for the politics and strategy stuff but that adds flavour, history, lore, a story to be told and get involved in, RP around, which I also love. FDev have said they look at the BGS systems when considering CGs and that if they decide that a group is trying to do something screwy with the BGS, they don't do the CG so in their eyes at least, it is balanced.

  3. #18
    Originally Posted by Walter2 View Post (Source)
    As Jmanis pointed, there may well be perfectly good reasons why a group does not actively promote its PMF. Not all PMFs are run by groups; I can think of several scenarios in which a single PMF controller might be unable to play for a couple of weeks.

    In my region there are at least two PMFs that get no systematic support, yet their influence levels are frequently adjusted by passing traders. Given how difficult it is to get a PMF into the game, what mechanism do you suggest that would identify an unused faction, undertake due diligence and then make the time and effort available to purge the database?


    I must be missing something. How are we all punished by a passive (by definition) contruct?
    Most "Ghost PMFs" are put in place deliberately by Powers with to give negative/opposite politics to increase the effort a power requires to hold on to a particular sphere and FDev fell for it. ie it was a strategic move by powers (which FDev said they would not allow - but then did) and now we are stuck with them, they should be purged out of the game.

    Many groups did this as it was so easy in the early days, so I'm sure they will all come and defend their Ghost PMFs.

    I have nothing whatsoever against PMFs that actually support their MF.

    Maybe after 2 weeks (maybe even 4) an untouched PMF should lose influence more quickly

    PS if FDev did purge Ghost PMFs there would be a massive amount of room released for new/current PMFs that are finding it hard to find a space in an already overcrowded BGS.

  4. #19
    Originally Posted by Rob At Work View Post (Source)
    Most "Ghost PMFs" are put in place deliberately by Powers with to give negative/opposite politics to increase the effort a power requires to hold on to a particular sphere and FDev fell for it. ie it was a strategic move by powers (which FDev said they would not allow - but then did) and now we are stuck with them, they should be purged out of the game.

    Many groups did this as it was so easy in the early days, so I'm sure they will all come and defend their Ghost PMFs.

    I have nothing whatsoever against PMFs that actually support their MF.

    Maybe after 2 weeks (maybe even 4) an untouched PMF should lose influence more quickly

    PS if FDev did purge Ghost PMFs there would be a massive amount of room released for new/current PMFs that are finding it hard to find a space in an already overcrowded BGS.
    Can you expand on this? I have never heard this before, and I've been involved in powerplay and BGS for a long time. Not denying that it happens — but am curious.

  5. #20
    Same here -- this is the first time I heard that. Can you provide any examples?

  6. #21
    Originally Posted by Rob At Work View Post (Source)
    If an inserted Player Minor Faction has not been touched for 2 weeks it should be ejected, IMO.

    Ghost PMFs are the scourge of the BGS.
    OK... so go ahead and define "Not been touched".

    You can't. Literally. Welcome to the BGS, where everything affects everything, and there is zero affiliation between players and those factions.

    If I log in once a fortnight and run a mission for a completely different faction, which has that faction as an end-point, and so the faction gains some influence, is that active or not?
    What if some pubbie just happens to dump off some goods on a trade run there, is that inactive?

    The entire problem with your suggestion is you aren't identifying an idle faction, you're identifying an idle system. Negative influence certainly isn't a measure, as that faction may be under assault. Of course then we start coming up with rules like "Oh well, if after two months you don't control any assets and are only in one system, you're booted"... but some PMFs are, for their relevant player group, *intentionally* that way.

    This is all because the (broken record time, look away if you're tired of me saying this) BGS is primarily to provide a living, breathing universe. FD acknowledge there's that strategic overlay, but that's secondary to it's main purpose. The overarching strategy game implementation is Powerplay, like it or not. If the BGS primary purpose was a as a strategy game overlay, as I mentioned, player-submitted CGs *do not* have a place in that vision of the BGS, as their current implementation by FD is an act of pure favouritism(1) due to the severe (and usually positive) effects a CG can have, right down to having rewards which are simply unattainable by any traditional gameplay mechanism (such as building new stations, expanding to new systems, luxuries afforded to other PMFs already). To accept player-submitted CGs as "fine" and simultaneously consider the BGS purely a "strategy game" aspect of ED requires some major cognitive dissonance.

    The problem is FD touts the BGS as both, which is why we're here. And while FD does tout the BGS as both these things, the considerations and rules of both will apply, so with that in mind I don't believe any player can have *any* claim on an inactive faction, nor is there any problem with FD not booting inactive BGS factions. Personally the rule of "No new PMFs in systems where there's existing ones" is dumb, but carte-blanch allowing it is also dumb... there needs to be better *in-game* mechanics that cater for both sides.

    As it stands, the "official" wind down for my PMF is that, where we came to power in a time of crisis, introducing martial law and chasing down "the bad guys" to secure systems within the sector, we're now commencing a gradual hand-back to the civilian entities over time, in recognition of the fact some systems will eventually get taken by other factions. Where that's via a war, it's because our PMF didn't think they were the right authority to put in place and oppose it, and where it's by election, it's the democratic purpose to ensure the people think the new faction can provide security and stability. We're no longer actively pushing an agenda of conquering systems for our faction, but our group still play the game. We're fighting Thargoids (which are nowhere near our systems), exploring, doing powerplay, trading, all sorts of things, and, were it an option to in-game, we'd wave our faction's flag in all those situations. But it isn't.

    The proper fix for this, if you really wanted to "age-off" old groups would be to allow their creation *directly* in game by players (not gonna happen, because FD want to babysit the lot, that's their choice, but I always wondered how they'd cope... answer: they didn't, evidenced by the massive wait times) under the conditions like "Not if other PMFs are present, max of 7 in a system" if you like, and people "join" that faction. So then, *if* they own no assets and are only in one system, *and* none of their players have been active for *over* two months, maybe think about ditching it then. But again, that's some pretty fundamental changes to how the BGS and PMFs work that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime.

    (1) For the record, I make absolutely no assertation of FD "playing favourites" here or suggest any conspiracy, because that's not my view of the BGS...

    Most "Ghost PMFs" are put in place deliberately by Powers with to give negative/opposite politics to increase the effort a power requires to hold on to a particular sphere and FDev fell for it. ie it was a strategic move by powers (which FDev said they would not allow - but then did) and now we are stuck with them, they should be purged out of the game.
    Right, so FD need to fix the problem which is "Players submitting Ghost PMFs". They inspect every submission and take months to do it, they should be identifying that sort of activity as part of that process, not throw in some lazy and arbitrary mechanism using magic numbers to pick when a PMF gets aged off.

  7. #22
    Originally Posted by Jmanis View Post (Source)
    The whole thing comes down to the fact that nobody really "owns" a faction. Yes, only groups can request a PMF be put in the game, and yes FD may take the fact the group requests it into account, but there's no explicit, ingame tying of a faction to a group. People act like there is, but there really isn't.
    That is the exact reason why i did not go through the
    torment and hassle of creating a PMF in the first place.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12