Actual faction management for PMFs

[molgrips]

I want to create a PMF then have an actual budget where we can make money delivering stuff and then use that to offer my own missions so that I can use the money to pay other CMDRs to work for me expanding or opposing other factions etc.

I can't see how this would be difficult to implement but it'd be a flippin awesome mechanic. It would make PowerPlay a LOT more interesting if powers had budgets too. PP folk would have to actually negotiate with PMF managers in real life for cooperation

 

[Jmanis]

I want to create a PMF then have an actual budget where we can make money delivering stuff and then use that to offer my own missions so that I can use the money to pay other CMDRs to work for me expanding or opposing other factions etc.

I can't see how this would be difficult to implement but it'd be a flippin awesome mechanic. It would make PowerPlay a LOT more interesting if powers had budgets too. PP folk would have to actually negotiate with PMF managers in real life for cooperation

You don't own, control or otherwise have stake in a faction though, whether a PMF or not (there is no functional distinction between PMFs and "procedural" ones)

The most you can do is pledge a squadron to a faction, where multiple squadrons can pledge to the same faction, and the faction need not (and does not) reciprocate that pledge in any way.

Now, if you were able to offer "squadron incentive" to undertake particular actions that would happen to support a particular faction, or go against another faction, sure. For example, if a squadron wallet paid out either other squadron members or even the general public a 10% top up of any bounties cashed for a particular faction, awesome.

But that would be squadron management, not faction management.

 

[molgrips]

You don't own, control or otherwise have stake in a faction though

I know, I'm saying that we should. It'd be way more fun.

 

[Lugh]

I would rather see them fix and improve the bgs over this.

For one in elite you're just supposed to be another pilot nothing special. Definitely not leading an entire faction spanning dozens of star systems.

 

[molgrips]

You don't have to play that bit

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

When you are in executive control of potentially billions-populated areas of space, a game loses its sense of scale.

I would however be more interested in a better evocation of those billions of population that we're supposed to be flying over and serving, etc. For instance, surface cities on earthlikes as named entities that might feature in missions via a remote interaction, etc., even if they can't be visited or directly viewed in any detail. More flavour NPCs passing through starports.

Also, more interesting and involved ways of interacting with factions and feeling allied/hated, etc.

 

[rootsrat]

I want to create a PMF then have an actual budget where we can make money delivering stuff and then use that to offer my own missions so that I can use the money to pay other CMDRs to work for me expanding or opposing other factions etc.

I can't see how this would be difficult to implement but it'd be a flippin awesome mechanic. It would make PowerPlay a LOT more interesting if powers had budgets too. PP folk would have to actually negotiate with PMF managers in real life for cooperation

You may like Stellaris. What you describe doesn't really fit with ED premise.

 

[Kissamies]

No, it's a good idea. BGS may have originally be intended for, well background, but its manipulation is one of the things that keep players playing after they have grinded everything. It could use some love. Other thing is that some players have accumulated many billions of credits and have nothing to use them on. Investing to a faction to generate certain types of missions in a specific system would be a nice way to gamble with those billions and have a bit more levers to manipulate factions without really controlling them.

 

[Sysmon]

Also, ED players don't really like managing anything. Just see what the Fleet Carriers ended up as.

S

 

[Lugh]

No, it's a good idea. BGS may have originally be intended for, well background, but its manipulation is one of the things that keep players playing after they have grinded everything. It could use some love. Other thing is that some players have accumulated many billions of credits and have nothing to use them on. Investing to a faction to generate certain types of missions in a specific system would be a nice way to gamble with those billions and have a bit more levers to manipulate factions without really controlling them.

Yeah, this is why I would rather see the bgs get some love.

The idea here is a little too involved.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And overnight every player takes a PMF and there is massive demand to FD for thousands of new PMFs.

Also, why would anyone work for someone else when they can have their own PMF?

Who wants to be a peasant when they can be king? Who wants to be a red shirt when they can be Kirk?

 

[Jmanis]

No, it's a good idea. BGS may have originally be intended for, well background, but its manipulation is one of the things that keep players playing after they have grinded everything. It could use some love. Other thing is that some players have accumulated many billions of credits and have nothing to use them on. Investing to a faction to generate certain types of missions in a specific system would be a nice way to gamble with those billions and have a bit more levers to manipulate factions without really controlling them.

But again, that's a totally different thing to literal faction management.

I don't like the idea of making factions generate certain mission types, because it's the background sim. You can already control the mission types by influencing state. mechanics to Incentivise players to undertake certain activities would be great. Direct control would be game-breaking. Those interactions must be indirect otherwise it's not the background sim, it's the "foreground sim", and FD have stated they've failed at their job if that's what it becomes.

The other issue is that there is no chain of command/control. Anyone can pledge to and support whoever they like, and you can't deconflict that; that's fundamental to the nature of being an independent Pilot's Federation commander. Giving control over a faction to anyone fundamentally changes what you are, and your representation in the game.

Again... letting players influence factions by incentivising player activity which supports or detracts from a particular faction; great, awesome, all for it. Controlling how factions behave/operate/function, no way. That goes completely against the nature of the game, and being a member of the Pilot's Federation (i.e game mechanics, and lore).

 

[Lugh]

Also, why would anyone work for someone else when they can have their own PMF?

It's not rare for players/groups to decide to back an npc faction rather than make their own

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It's not rare for players/groups to decide to back an npc faction rather than make their own

For sure. That's how it was before FD started allowing PMFs.

But with the current situation, nobody really profits from supporting a faction. It provides groups with a focus, some team based gameplay, something to work towards.

Now give people the ability to profit from "owning" a faction. That might change people's thinking.

 

[Jmanis]

For sure. That's how it was before FD started allowing PMFs.

But with the current situation, nobody really profits from supporting a faction. It provides groups with a focus, some team based gameplay, something to work towards.

Now give people the ability to profit from "owning" a faction. That might change people's thinking.

And then throw in there that the BGS is neither technically nor strategically positioned to actually enable that sort of gameplay.

Fundamentally, it still comes down to the design decision that FD put down when implementing Powerplay... the BGS (insofaras minor factions and such) is the "background flavour" while PP is the group-vs-group game mechanic, with rewards for supporting a power and the ability to control how they grow and fight, to a degree.

 

[Lugh]

And then throw in there that the BGS is neither technically nor strategically positioned to actually enable that sort of gameplay.

Fundamentally, it still comes down to the design decision that FD put down when implementing Powerplay... the BGS (insofaras minor factions and such) is the "background flavour" while PP is the group-vs-group game mechanic, with rewards for supporting a power and the ability to control how they grow and fight, to a degree.

Exactly this.

A less obtuse bgs
More intuitive cause and effect on the bgs
Fewer bugs
And larger variations on states and factions.

This are the key areas I would like to see fdev work on

I would also like to see more dynamic system development. Let wars damage stations and let new ones be built by factions. Other things like this that have a real impact on a system environment I think would make the world feel more alive.