A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Angry Fish Smell]

I fail to see why allowing multiple wars would solve anything, given the nature of the game in every other respect. Right now, if a small group has 5 members and a large group has 50, the large group will win the 1 war state and (if their opponent owns something) gain 1 asset. If multiple war states could exist at the same time, then you'd end up with a combination of:

A. The large group would go to war in multiple locations, the small faction would oppose them in one. Assuming the large faction is asleep at the wheel and never says "oh hey we're losing influence in this specific war, more people should go work on that" and the small faction pulls out a win, the large group wins the other wars and potentially gains multiple assets instead of 1. More likely, though, is that the larger faction still flat out wins every war state, because if they're starting out with high influence pre-war, they'll always have at least a day to focus on the war in the areas they're starting to get close in. Multiple war states wouldn't suddenly make large factions stop paying to current influence levels.

B. The small group goes to war in multiple locations, loses multiple assets, gets snuffed out of existence far faster than normal.

Unlocking the war state wouldn't give smaller factions "more of a chance" against large factions; it would just result in already-large factions exploding out and taking assets faster than they already do.

The upshot is that this is a game with limited territory and the larger groups can take that territory if they choose to. If your group is too small to oppose a larger group and that's what you've decided to spend your playtime on, your options boil down to either harassing the larger group as a delaying-but-not-winning tactic*, or find other small groups and form a coalition large enough to counter your opponent. There's no magical third option where Frontier will enable god mode for a handful of players to always win against a larger group, and the fact that you think the game is "broken" without that sort of exploitation just makes me hope that you're not a mod or admin on any MMO that I play.

*Ironically, given that most of the ways to harass large factions via the BGS boil down to "push them into unwanted blocking states", allowing multiple states per faction would remove even this option from an already-very-short-list of guerilla harassment tactics in this game and leave small factions in an even worse state defensively.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

I've worked against large groups before. There are lots of dirty tricks you can do - without resorting to exploits either.

 

[smiths121]

Why is this a reason the bgs is over? It's the same thing as it's always been since launch and a bigger group has more resources to throw around. If anything this says that a player group should not be taking actions against a larger known force without being aware that it may go nowhere. Fdev has stated this will not change and there's no easy or simple way to code multiple factions states if it is even possible.

If a smaller faction wants to take on a larger faction it needs to be aware that it may not go the way they want and will have repercussions of the larger group is actually active and paying attention. It's been like this since day one and likely will forever.

I agree with the spirit of your comment! I do not agree with the assertion that "it's been like this since day one and likely will forver" - well I agree with the last bit of it! Sorry let me get to my point.

When the cooldown timers from conflicts were longer, the disparity between the resources/effort available to both sides was offset wit the longer cycle between conflicts - it allowed the smaller group moe time to prepare. I am thinking pre 1.4 here (before war lost its cooldown timer). Well I think I am, I had a debate with Flynn and others about population affecting influence changes and reduced cooldown timers - and what it eant for small player groups - as I was part of a small effort out on the Frontier at the time. I cannot find the thread - but there were soem good points about hoe the changes effected smaller groups and larger groups.

From my point of view - smaller groups are the life blood of ED - even large groups started off as smaller groups (SEPP was around 10 people back in 1.4 for example). The big groups, with many 100 or 1000s of members certainly exist now, and under the current ruleset seem somewhat unstoppable - sure you can annoy them, the freedom-fighter/terrorist role is beginning to emerge (originally coined for PP). Not much you can do if your in their path, where you have no choice but to take them on.

Simon

 

[Angry Fish Smell]

IWhen the cooldown timers from conflicts were longer, the disparity between the resources/effort available to both sides was offset wit the longer cycle between conflicts - it allowed the smaller group moe time to prepare.

What could a small group do to "prepare" that a larger group couldn't do more of, exactly?

From my point of view - smaller groups are the life blood of ED - even large groups started off as smaller groups (SEPP was around 10 people back in 1.4 for example). The big groups, with many 100 or 1000s of members certainly exist now, and under the current ruleset seem somewhat unstoppable - sure you can annoy them, the freedom-fighter/terrorist role is beginning to emerge (originally coined for PP). Not much you can do if your in their path, where you have no choice but to take them on.

The thing that you keep using is "how the game was pre 1.4"-- but those big groups didn't spring fully formed out of nowhere. Some were around in 1.4 but weren't as large, some didn't exist at all except as individual players or small groups. The issue is not that the game mechanics have changed, so much as the game has been around longer, gained more players, and those players naturally congregated together in groups with shared ideologies until they were big groups. Powerplay probably accelerated this over time in some regards, since players were essentially forced to act in a coordinated manner behind one Powerplay faction in order to have any overall effect (assuming they cared to), but what you're describing is the same thing that happens in any game that has 1. Some form of "player-controlled" territory, 2. A limitation on the territory that can be controlled, and 3. Some form of PvP action to take or hold that territory (even if it's in as indirect a manner as the BGS is).

Effectively, the issues that you're describing are equally applicable to, for an easy example, a Minecraft server. When a game is new and fresh, like Elite: Dangerous two or more years ago, there's fewer players, fewer interactions, people spread to all corners of creation solo or with small groups of people they joined the game with. But as the game continues and people start to butt heads, the solo player loses to the group of 3 people and either quits or goes to find a handful of other solo players who were likewise ejected from their territory, form a clan, take some new territory or kick some other solo players out of the territory they held....and so it goes, until 3 years in there's a handful of giant factions and solo players coming in are basically faced with the option of "join or have a really crappy time because nobody's going to defend you". In some games the solution is "spin up a new server", but obviously in a world where Frontier can barely spin up a second galaxy for beta purposes, let alone a third to test game-altering BGS changes, the closest to new territory you're going to find is something like Colonia, and since it exists in the same universe as the rest of the BGS there's nothing stopping a large group from making a mass exodus and taking Colonia instead...

But I digress. The short version is, confusing the mechanics of Elite Dangerous with the playerbase as the reason the game's landscape has changed since 1.4 is...I don't want to say "delusional", but it's absolutely mistaking correlation with causation. The game has matured since 1.4 but continues to gain players, even if the number of active players ebbs and flows with major patches. And the infllux of players is the reason the game has an increased number of large player groups, not because of the mechanics themselves, but because new players gravitate towards those large groups in order to compete in meaningful ways against the other large groups. No amount of reverting mechanics is going to solve that problem, I'm afraid.

 

[DarthBlingBling]

To all of you out there who have Player Factions: As far as I can tell, with the current BGS mechanics, the BGS game is OVER. The largest player group always wins with the current mechanics. There is nothing in the current BGS mechanics that allows a smaller player group to win against a larger player group because it always comes down to a single war for control which you can't win against a larger player group. There is nothing in the BGS mechanics that allows any way around this. The BGS currently is like a game of Risk, except that the guy with the largest number of armies is able to employ all of his forces in every battle, every time, and always win. And his forces are not weakened at all from engaging in a war. The fundamental problem is that multiple player groups, no matter how many, attacking a large player group are forced to engage in one battle at a time and the Large player group is able to bring the full extent of his forces to every battle. The BGS as currently implemented does not permit more than one war for a faction at a time. So, barring a change to the BGS, the BGS game is already over...prepare to be conquered by the largest player group. I posted a suggestion about this here...

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ars-for-minor-factions-(in-different-systems)

There are plenty of very small player groups who do remarkably well.

You chose to go up against a larger, and WELL ORGANISED player group who have been playing the BGS since the beginning. What made you think you could go toe to toe with relative ease?!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

To all of you out there who have Player Factions: As far as I can tell, with the current BGS mechanics, the BGS game is OVER. The largest player group always wins with the current mechanics. There is nothing in the current BGS mechanics that allows a smaller player group to win against a larger player group because it always comes down to a single war for control which you can't win against a larger player group. There is nothing in the BGS mechanics that allows any way around this. The BGS currently is like a game of Risk, except that the guy with the largest number of armies is able to employ all of his forces in every battle, every time, and always win. And his forces are not weakened at all from engaging in a war. The fundamental problem is that multiple player groups, no matter how many, attacking a large player group are forced to engage in one battle at a time and the Large player group is able to bring the full extent of his forces to every battle. The BGS as currently implemented does not permit more than one war for a faction at a time. So, barring a change to the BGS, the BGS game is already over...prepare to be conquered by the largest player group. I posted a suggestion about this here...

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ars-for-minor-factions-(in-different-systems)

Nah, they will hit a limit as to how many systems they can effectively manage. Eventually they would reach a size where they need to spread their resources too thin to maintain what they have. And this is fine, each group, depending on size, would reach a max they could hit. Sure, as only 1 conflict at a time they could coordinate their responses, but with more systems to control, there is more options for others to hammer influence where they are not focused. They can't be everywhere at once and win everywhere at once.

 

[Deareim]

I've worked against large groups before. There are lots of dirty tricks you can do - without resorting to exploits either.

Like please ? I am interested.

 

[jimbeau1571]

Like please ? I am interested.

Wait for a War to start and then hammer the other systems by completing missions for other MF's.

 

[Sentenza]

To all of you out there who have Player Factions: As far as I can tell, with the current BGS mechanics, the BGS game is OVER. The largest player group always wins with the current mechanics. There is nothing in the current BGS mechanics that allows a smaller player group to win against a larger player group because it always comes down to a single war for control which you can't win against a larger player group. There is nothing in the BGS mechanics that allows any way around this. The BGS currently is like a game of Risk, except that the guy with the largest number of armies is able to employ all of his forces in every battle, every time, and always win. And his forces are not weakened at all from engaging in a war. The fundamental problem is that multiple player groups, no matter how many, attacking a large player group are forced to engage in one battle at a time and the Large player group is able to bring the full extent of his forces to every battle. The BGS as currently implemented does not permit more than one war for a faction at a time. So, barring a change to the BGS, the BGS game is already over...prepare to be conquered by the largest player group. I posted a suggestion about this here...

I respectfully disagree on this

There are many successful examples of small groups fighting large groups. You are focusing on fighting battles, but the key strategy is not fighting battles. In fact, BGS right now makes large factions more vulnerable than small factions: you don't fight a single decisive battle 19th century style with them, you fight anywhere else - and large groups have a lot of "anywhere" to hit!

 

[goemon]

I've worked against large groups before. There are lots of dirty tricks you can do - without resorting to exploits either.

Like please ? I am interested.

Wait for a War to start and then hammer the other systems by completing missions for other MF's.

I respectfully disagree on this

There are many successful examples of small groups fighting large groups. You are focusing on fighting battles, but the key strategy is not fighting battles. In fact, BGS right now makes large factions more vulnerable than small factions: you don't fight a single decisive battle 19th century style with them, you fight anywhere else - and large groups have a lot of "anywhere" to hit!

generally this.

there are a lot of best practices, mainly depending on the concrete situation.

- large group is in several systems. some of those systems will be small population systems. it is easy to put their faction into a hindering state in one of the small systems after the other. when you have done this several times, pick up communications - in many cases they'll be happy to go for some kind of treaty, instead of cleaning up your mess all the time.

- large group is putting you in lockdown in a system you are in control. do weapons trading to fill the civil unrest bucket before lockdown, and do BGS effective USS bountyhunting in a system without RES.

- large group is brilliant in BGSing. go into hiding for 2-3 month. they'll move on, pick up new conflicts, at which point you can start to re-conquer your system(s).

- reduce your influence below the conflict threshold, so they can't get a conflict going. block any system control conflict by conflicts in other less important systems for your faction.

etc. pp.

of course, you won't be always successfull. but if you would, that wouldn't be a battle.

generally there is no need for a faction to have a lot of influence, to make a groups story. if you have ever seen firefly, you know what i'm talking about. one of the minor factions i'm backing is sitting at <10% influence since almost a year.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I respectfully disagree on this

There are many successful examples of small groups fighting large groups. You are focusing on fighting battles, but the key strategy is not fighting battles. In fact, BGS right now makes large factions more vulnerable than small factions: you don't fight a single decisive battle 19th century style with them, you fight anywhere else - and large groups have a lot of "anywhere" to hit!

Indeed. If a larger group starts hitting your system, and you know who it is, you can always have some fun letting them work on your system while you hit their home system or perhaps multiple low pop systems they control.

 

[Schlack]

Yes it is possible for a large faction to curbstomp a smaller one, its also possible for a smaller faction to severely disrupt a larger one. A couple of relevant points to add to the large group/small group debate (which would probably require a thread of its own).

1. Space is BIG, very big as the well known quote goes. For the vast majority this means they will never have a geographical reason to get into conflict with each other. There may be other lore/forum drama etc reasons to get into conflict.

2. We have a number of neighbouring player factions of varying sizes, not all Alliance based. A BGS war would deflect from our goals of growing our factions and the Alliance through a mutually harmful waste of resources. See 1 above. It is quite possible to expand away from your neighbours to avoid/minimize such difficulties and come to mutually agreeable management options for systems where both have expanded to.

 

[Bearcat]

The point I'm making is that in order to take control of a system, you have to win a war against the controlling faction, and because the BGS is simulating a universe in which there is a law of physics which says that if you are fighting faction A in a system, no matter how many light years away it is, you cannot possibly be fighting a war for control anywhere else in the universe. This seems like a very strange kind of reality that is being simulated. It means that the larger faction is always able to bring his full forces to bear in every war for control he has to fight. It is a universe in which war is serialized for a faction. This seems quite unrealistic to me, and I believe that if this artificial law of physics were removed it would be an improvement to the game.

 

[MottiKhan]

Yes it is possible for a large faction to curbstomp a smaller one, its also possible for a smaller faction to severely disrupt a larger one. A couple of relevant points to add to the large group/small group debate (which would probably require a thread of its own).

1. Space is BIG, very big as the well known quote goes. For the vast majority this means they will never have a geographical reason to get into conflict with each other. There may be other lore/forum drama etc reasons to get into conflict.

2. We have a number of neighbouring player factions of varying sizes, not all Alliance based. A BGS war would deflect from our goals of growing our factions and the Alliance through a mutually harmful waste of resources. See 1 above. It is quite possible to expand away from your neighbours to avoid/minimize such difficulties and come to mutually agreeable management options for systems where both have expanded to.

+1. Expanding away from other factions is much more effective in maintaining a healthy empire than trying to vie for contested systems.

 

[Schlack]

The point I'm making is that in order to take control of a system, you have to win a war against the controlling faction, and because the BGS is simulating a universe in which there is a law of physics which says that if you are fighting faction A in a system, no matter how many light years away it is, you cannot possibly be fighting a war for control anywhere else in the universe. This seems like a very strange kind of reality that is being simulated. It means that the larger faction is always able to bring his full forces to bear in every war for control he has to fight. It is a universe in which war is serialized for a faction. This seems quite unrealistic to me, and I believe that if this artificial law of physics were removed it would be an improvement to the game.

Yes there is an unreal aspect to the BGS in that you cant be in boom in New York while at the same time fighting a war in Hawaii. But the BGS is an abstraction of events not an accurate portrayal. I'm not sure it would be better from a gameplay perspective to have faction states individualized per system - certainly not once you get above a certain size. The other aspect to consider from FD's perspective is the daily BGS calculation overhead and BGS redesign.

Larger factions cant always being their entire forces to bear in any given conflict. The BGS mechanics require careful management both before and during conflicts (of various types) to manage the faction across different systems. Election is probably the worst state for this. e.g. in a BH heavy system your faction will drop significantly due to BH effects for your faction being negated. The bigger you get the more of such management is required, particularly if you wish to achieve certain outcomes in other systems. 1st world problems you might say but this is one of the interesting challenges managing a large faction brings.

 

[Sentenza]

The point I'm making is that in order to take control of a system, you have to win a war against the controlling faction, and because the BGS is simulating a universe in which there is a law of physics which says that if you are fighting faction A in a system, no matter how many light years away it is, you cannot possibly be fighting a war for control anywhere else in the universe. This seems like a very strange kind of reality that is being simulated. It means that the larger faction is always able to bring his full forces to bear in every war for control he has to fight. It is a universe in which war is serialized for a faction. This seems quite unrealistic to me, and I believe that if this artificial law of physics were removed it would be an improvement to the game.

But the same laws of this universe dictate that when you are fighting that war, all your other systems suffer and are therefore vulnerable to attack. So against a larger factions you don't waste time fighting the main battles - you would lose them anyway - but instead fight a guerrilla attacking anywhere else, wrecking their back systems and forcing them to fight other wars elsewhere instead.

I suggest you to read this: https://archive.org/details/strategyofindire035126mbp

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

The premise is not valid though? You only have to win a war against the controlling faction in their own home system.

 

[Fry]

@ADAM WAITE

A small feedback for you and the changes in Superpower Bounty mechanics, for what i can tell from our systems (empire), it stoped with bleeding and is pretty stable.

We thank you

 

[Sentenza]

The premise is not valid though? You only have to win a war against the controlling faction in their own home system.

This is not Total War winning in the "home system" means nothing.

 

[Vingtetun]

I vote that everyone should just get along and kick the backside of loonie npc sects like the mad monks of van maanen.