Alliance factions!

The Alliance is generally the best at BGS work because it tended to attract the experienced players who are most passionate about the lore of Elite, the end-game and the big-picture.

One of the prequel Elite games (Frontier: First Encounters) had a Story, and in that Story, the Alliance were the good guys, trying to stop the evil INRA (a shadowy coalition of Empire and Federation operatives) from unjustly exterminating the Thargoids, who had apparently learned their lesson about invading Human space and now just wanted to peacefully coexist.

Many FFE veteran players at game launch assumed that this old lore would remain in place and the Alliance would become key to whatever Thargoid-related storyline might get introduced into ED, so they gravitated towards getting cozy with the Alliance.

Fast forward to today, and that old FFE Story has now been retconned into oblivion. The Thargoids are not friendly, they are not psychologically capable of friendliness and they do not seek peaceful coexistence. The INRA (who were now mostly-good guys, trying to stop the alien threat by any means necessary) went defunct after the Thargoids retreated but now that the Thargoids are back, it has been reborn as AEGIS, a coalition which includes the Alliance as well.

So the original reason for siding with the Alliance no longer exists. Now, it's just a matter of "siding with the little guys".

Given the successes in Alliance expansion and the resultant collapse in Federation and Empire strength, I fully expect the Federation will become "the littlest guy" within a couple of years. I trust that when this happens, many of the current Alliance supporters will switch sides and support the new Little Guys.
 
So the original reason for siding with the Alliance no longer exists. Now, it's just a matter of "siding with the little guys".
I think that's disingenuous.

The first value of the Alliance is individual, in that it provides common defense for independent (no capital "I") systems against colonization by the Federation or the Empire, leaving most of their independence intact.

The second value is more universal: the existence of a third major faction makes it much less likely that there will be a war for the bubble. Neither the Feds nor the Imperials can count on winning a war against the other two together, and if the Alliance sat out such a war it could sweep in and take over once the others were weakened. Its existence is nearly a guarantee of peace on the larger scale.

So there are more reasons for supporting the Alliance than you seem to think.
 
Interesting thread.

they are not psychologically capable of friendliness and they do not seek peaceful coexistence.
Good description of the only player group I have ever been in contact with where negotiations broke down. Shame really, we could have been allies.
 
Updated charts, thanks Mangal.



Again, everyone can see the Alliance oppression against the independents!
The big & nasty Alliance against the small & weak independents... :LOL:

Sigh.

Ps: nothing directly against OP but I just want to show the reality to all these independents who come and complain about the Allliance oppression here or on Reddit and others channels. Open your eyes, look at the charts and stop crying, it's boring at the end. Play the game, have fun!
 
Last edited:
Updated charts, thanks Mangal.



Again, everyone can see the Alliance oppression against the independents!
The big & nasty Alliance against the small & weak independents... :LOL:

Sigh.

Ps: nothing directly against OP but I just want to show the reality to all these independents who come and complain about the Allliance oppression here or on Reddit and others channels. Open your eyes, look at the charts and stop crying, it's boring at the end. Play the game, have fun!
The Alliance is the third largest group according to that chart. Independants are not a collective group, the yelllow represents 'other'.
 
Yes and no... What does the charts represent ? Systems controlled by... Independents are a part of the charts. If you take the results of the charts in consideration, you have to take all of it, not 3 parts of 4. When an independent faction take a system from an Alliance / Federation or Empire faction, the result is that a system switch to independent side (yellow bars).

I resume again... between the Alliance, the Federation, the Empire and the Independents... (if the Thargoids owned systems by BGS, they would be included in this chart but this is not the case AFAIK) So between all the entities named before, who wins and who loses? Thought it was simple to understand.
 
Yes and no... What does the charts represent ? Systems controlled by... Independents are a part of the charts. If you take the results of the charts in consideration, you have to take all of it, not 3 parts of 4. When an independent faction take a system from an Alliance / Federation or Empire faction, the result is that a system switch to independent side (yellow bars).

I resume again... between the Alliance, the Federation, the Empire and the Independents... (if the Thargoids owned systems by BGS, they would be included in this chart but this is not the case AFAIK) So between all the entities named before, who wins and who loses? Thought it was simple to understand.
The point was there's no "independent" side; they are as much against each other as they are the superpowers.

It's like if you had a poll with 10 options; 20% vote for A, 30% vote for B and 50% vote for "the other 7 options".

B is still the largest result, and A second largest (provided none of the other 7 had a return anove 20%)
 
Last edited:
Yes and no... What does the charts represent ? Systems controlled by... Independents are a part of the charts. If you take the results of the charts in consideration, you have to take all of it, not 3 parts of 4. When an independent faction take a system from an Alliance / Federation or Empire faction, the result is that a system switch to independent side (yellow bars).

I resume again... between the Alliance, the Federation, the Empire and the Independents... (if the Thargoids owned systems by BGS, they would be included in this chart but this is not the case AFAIK) So between all the entities named before, who wins and who loses? Thought it was simple to understand.
I think you have been brainwashed by propaganda buddy. Or you are trying to convince others maybe. The Alliance is the 3rd largest superpower, 'independant' is a collective summary for 4th & below.
 
The point was there's no "independent" side; they are as much against each other as they are the superpowers.
They collaborate too, much like the Alliance & Empire do against the Feds from time to time, and probably other combinations depending on who the common enemy is at the time :)

I enjoy the dynamic, I can play one off against another or help to bring disparate groups together against a shared opponent or goal. Fun :)
 
I resume again... between the Alliance, the Federation, the Empire and the Independents... (if the Thargoids owned systems by BGS, they would be included in this chart but this is not the case AFAIK) So between all the entities named before, who wins and who loses? Thought it was simple to understand.
So the correct thing to do would be to break down the changes more precisely. There are four allegiances, so six separate areas in which systems can be gained and lost.

Alliance <-> Empire
Alliance <-> Federation
Alliance <-> Independent
Empire <-> Federation
Empire <-> Independent
Federation <-> Independent

It would be entirely consistent with the graphs shown for Alliance <-> Independent to be in net favour of the Alliance, but for Independent to still grow overall through victories against the Federation and Empire in regions where Alliance factions are rare or non-existent. Statistically an Alliance faction taking over one extra system is most likely to take an Independent one, while an Independent faction taking over one extra system is very unlikely to take an Alliance one.

Taking those numbers for the Witch Head Nebula in the last six months, for example:

Alliance <-> Empire: Alliance gains 5 (100% of all available)
Alliance <-> Federation: Alliance gains 4 (80% of all available)
Alliance <-> Independent: Alliance gains 1 (100% of all available)
Empire <-> Federation: no net change
Empire <-> Independent: no net change
Federation <-> Independent: no net change

The figures for the larger Sol-Maia bubble will be more varied, but I don't have them available. It would obviously be a defence to the charges presented here for the Alliance to demonstrate that over the recent past the Alliance has not had a net gain of systems from Independents.
 
Jmanis, I understand your point but there are also inter superpower faction take-offs everyday so...
I mean every day I see federal factions taking over other federal systems, same for Empire and Alliance of course, isn't it ?

Ian Doncaster, thanks for your analysis^^

Riverside, no propaganda here, not mine. I'm just fighting the propaganda who say "Alliance is taking over all the universe, we have to kill them all"... I exagerate a bit but we’re not far from that.

IMHO, in terms of BGS, we should not make differences between superpower minor factions and Independents minor factions. Be a minor faction of a superpower is not an advantage AFAIK, for proof, the biggest faction at this time is an independent one (DaVinci Corp, congratulations by the way!).

Also, it seems to me now a lot of Independents groups have made multi coallitions and "alliances"... So what are the differences ?

Maybe this is a never-ending debate, and we can go back and forth. o_O

What I see coming back to the graph is the NUMBER OF SYSTEMS CONTROLLED BY INDEPENDENT FACTIONS is growing every month and the NUMBER OF SYSTEMS CONTROLLED BY ALLIANCE FACTIONS is tiny so when I hear that we are the bad guys of the game and that we oppresses everyone, it makes me laugh a little.

Ps : Thanks for your time and arguments commanders.

Fly safe!
 
Riverside, no propaganda here,
Yes there is, it is in your post. It was about how you described independants as a collective superpower.

My experience of the only player group where negotiations broke down was that they were only interested in the numbers on a chart & not the actual systems. Perhaps there are exceptions.

I think that when a large group plays in a private group it can be difficult to engage with small groups or individual players that communicate in-game (ie not via an outside app like discord). It is a shame, but fortunately they are pretty easy to keep down. I think of it as like weeding a garden, or turning a ploughed field back into a meadow. I guess they rely on other players assuming a large group cannot be beaten and giving up maybe?

How do you percieve the individual factions that are not the (presumably multi-system) one you support? Do you see flavour, variety & nuance, or do you see a potential expansion source to some more systems?
 
Yes there is, it is in your post. It was about how you described independants as a collective superpower.
Please define "collective superpower".

Do you think Alliance (or other superpowers) is a unique entity ? All single commanders, groups works together, collectively ? Working the BGS on the same system at the same time ? All attacking there, defending here, together ? Is that your collective definition ?

If yes, this is not the case. That's why I personnally make no real differences between Independents and superpower factions because I see no differences while they are operating in terms of BGS.

-> Systems are controlled by a minor faction. It can be an Alliance one or a fed one, or an imp one or an independent one, no matters. Those who are pushing the minor factions to take control a system are groups or single commanders and that's it.

Can an Alliance faction enter in a war/elections against an other Alliance faction for controlling a system ? Yes. Same for Feds ? Yes. Same for Imps ? Yes. Same for Indeps ? Yes. So ?

Is there groups of several hundred players for Alliance ? Yes. Feds ? Yes. Imps ? Yes. Indeps ? Yes

I can continue like that for long...

So what are the real differences ? Maybe I've missed something ?

My experience of the only player group where negotiations broke down was that they were only interested in the numbers on a chart & not the actual systems. Perhaps there are exceptions.

I think that when a large group plays in a private group it can be difficult to engage with small groups or individual players that communicate in-game (ie not via an outside app like discord). It is a shame, but fortunately they are pretty easy to keep down. I think of it as like weeding a garden, or turning a ploughed field back into a meadow. I guess they rely on other players assuming a large group cannot be beaten and giving up maybe?
You are talking about your experience regarding a "certain group" where negociations have failed. Maybe the group you are talking is mine ? IDK. We had sometimes good negociations with positive results and agreements, sometimes not. Again, I'm pretty sure it's the same for all groups.

I'm not sure to understand perfectly the garden paragraph because I'm french and so english is not my native language. I just hope this not a new "your group is playing only in private mode or solo mode" message because there are public videos on youtube of my group fighting against various groups during past conflicts. What ever we do, we will always be seen as a group that hides, lol. Don't forget that BGS doesn't care of game modes... I will not lie. Do we have a private group ? Yes. Like the others groups but I can assure you that most of the AEDC commanders are playing in open. But even if I say that, you’ll tell me that I’m lying, right ? :) You have to take the console modes and instances in your equation. Even you will see 20 AEDC commanders in front of you, what's the plan ? Interdict us, kill us and you think you will win a BGS war like that ? PVP have 0 BGS results if you already don't know.

How do you percieve the individual factions that are not the (presumably multi-system) one you support? Do you see flavour, variety & nuance, or do you see a potential expansion source to some more systems?
We play a game, right ? Especially an internal one inside the game itself called BGS, that's why we are here, in this section of the forum. BGS is the fact to control systems by minor factions, winning or losing war, elections and we have expansions. Like all BGS players, we work, cherish, protect, expand our factions and we also have conflicts with other factions. Main goal is to expand your faction accross many systems. That's what we all do, Alliance groups, Feds groups, Imps groups and Indeps groups, even single commanders right ?

Tell me if I'm wrong.

Now you ask me how I consider systems where the ruling faction does not want to play the BGS game ? First, I wonder why a faction that who don't want to play the BGS game really wants to have his faction ruling a system. What is her goal ? It’s like putting a city car in the middle of a F1 circuit and ask the race cars to take care of the city car. That's my own opinion. You should ask the same question to all and not only us. The responses could be interresting.

Anyway I assure you that we are not extremists as some of you maybe think. We are open to dialog and have already make some exceptions in the past AFAIK. We can always talk. We have a discord, ambassies, relations with many groups...

We are not evil, I promise^^

Fly safe!
 
If the alliance really wanted to go on an aggressive push against independent and federal systems, they could get into LYR space and make the challenger available somewhere. There's only one alliance faction in that whole powerplay zone and they've only got the chief and crusader, and as for the T10, there's more anarchies supplying that one than alliance ports!
 
If the alliance really wanted to go on an aggressive push against independent and federal systems, they could get into LYR space and make the challenger available somewhere. There's only one alliance faction in that whole powerplay zone and they've only got the chief and crusader, and as for the T10, there's more anarchies supplying that one than alliance ports!
So your saying variety has benefits to the whole playerbase? This is a concept worth getting behind ;)
 
Top Bottom