Alliance factions!

none of these tactics were obviously against the intention of FDev when they were still in the game
Yes, because FDev could have credibly thought that logging out to the main menu repeatedly would have been engrossing gameplay or could possibly have had any in-game context...

Such mechanisms were widely accepted and abused to the point that anyone not doing so was handicapping their operations, but to imply that FDev had intended them to be used in the manner they were is a huge leap.
 
I'm happy at your enthusiasm for playing the BGS in good spirit, and seeing it as the game that it is, but your following comments confuse me a little. I'd be appreciative if you could quantify what you mean when you say that we're 'stretched too thin', and wrt us using 'exploits', I think you'd have to consider the following points: every other group at the time had the exact same opportunity to look for and discover what worked and what didn't within the BGS, and none of these tactics were obviously against the intention of FDev when they were still in the game, which I think would be the only reasonable criteria for them being exploits, as otherwise they'd just be the mechanics of the game. We use the best strategies that we are aware of, and so do other competent groups (including against us), so I don't really see what the issue is.
This is the broadest, most nondescript justification of possibly anything (short of using a third party executable) that I've ever read.
 
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 problem with those graphs, it includes "powerplay imperials" as independents.

Celestial Light Brigade and Aisling's Angels are just as imperial as anyone else in the Imperial High Command. They've chosen independent governments because of Powerplay rules pushed by FDEV to support the Imperial Princess.

I'm certainly not oppressed when my allies take another system, or when the Princess's supporters join the Imperial PvP wings hunting Federation pilots.

My point? Some of the biggest independent groups in the game really aren't. It's more complicated than that.
 
The green corridor stuff wasn't bots, that was me. Sometimes I get help from other players I meet while playing in Open.



Which part of this was not clear?
I assume then, that you were the guy who kicked the Alliance out of Ross 128? I'm looking and it looks like they were retreated, and I don't think they can ever go back since it's permit locked.
 
I assume then, that you were the guy who kicked the Alliance out of Ross 128? I'm looking and it looks like they were retreated, and I don't think they can ever go back since it's permit locked.
7.2mCr of Bounties from G 89-32 on the last day of a retreat will do that to a faction, yes ;) I wasn't the only one though.

Hudson has a similar issue with independants, lots of indy Feudals around in Hudson space. I'm not aligned to a particular superpower but I generally operate in Hudson territory & one of my rules is to not make things worse for the Powerplay players, they have it bad enough already imo.
 
7.2mCr of Bounties from G 89-32 on the last day of a retreat will do that to a faction, yes ;) I wasn't the only one though.

Hudson has a similar issue with independants, lots of indy Feudals around in Hudson space. I'm not aligned to a particular superpower but I generally operate in Hudson territory & one of my rules is to not make things worse for the Powerplay players, they have it bad enough already imo.
That's one of the things that I do. Anarchies are neutral to every powerplay power, but I'll avoid flipping a favourable government if it'll mean losing them their fortification bonus, and if I can I'll see if I can replace it in another system first. If nothing else it doesn't help me to go poking the beehive.
 
The problem with those graphs, it includes "powerplay imperials" as independents.
That's not a problem wit the graphs, the problem rather lies with the game. The Powerplay-BGS interactions hardly ever make sense and are poorly designed.

Anyway, I think we all agree that the superpower categories are nearly just as meaningless as the "indy" category. In the end all groups are their own entities, regardless of allegiance. I think superpower factions are more likely to be friends with each other and cooperate more than indies in general, but that does not prove that indies are somehow less powerful than the superpowers. They can have their own alliances and coalitions with other groups and there are many examples of such.

The argument that superpower communities "oppress" indies is usually mere propaganda. Especially the Alliance community has overall been very tolerant of Indy presence in its Powerplay territory and neighborhood - for as long as they don't eat up Alliance systems. (There are not a whole lot of them and most of what is there is the result of player effort).

In almost all cases negotiations are simple and people can reach work-arounds to please both sides. Of course that doesn't mean it always works out. And I can see why some have hurt feelings over that.

The stats clearly show that Indies are doing just fine. They keep expanding without much problem. There may be individual cases where someone's plans have been thwarted by an Alliance faction. I bet there are even more cases when an indy faction thwarted another indy faction's plans, it's simply a given by their sheer numbers.
 
Last edited:
Despite the rumours and myths spread by others, AEDC in particular doesn't seek out player group conflict. We will however, defend Alliance factions that come under attack from other groups (those groups are usually "oppressed" Indies). That is especially true of Alliance factions we've previously pushed against NPC factions. It's rarely, if ever, AEDC that attacks but "oppressed" Indies who we're defending against!
Your choice not to defend a certain alliance unit, who have been under attack from fed black ops for months indicates that this not entirely the truth. This said, generally this is accurate.

Regardless, guys The Alliance are hardly the bad guys, and we are certainly no sneakier than the Feds. The fact is, there is a lot of sneakiness going on from all sides right now. Fed factions are attacked with cloak & dagger ops, Alliance factions are DEFINITELY under attack by cloak & dagger. I don't really hang around Impy space, but.... probably same there right?

To the one guy who said something about joining the Alliance because they are the little guys? Nah, that's not why. At all. Alliance is Basically Space Europe, a group of independent systems under one flag. None of this federation corporatist rubbish, or Wanna be spehhz roman with edgy slaves .
 
Last edited:
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!
Speaking of which, the feds are trying super-hard to remove that faction right now . . . just sayin'
 
Last edited:
I've been playing awhile now and I've noticed that on the whole Alliance factions are more sneaky in how they play the BGS. Can anyone enlighten me politely why this is the case.
Misperception and Confirmation Bias is the answer you're looking for, that'll be $20 please
 
Your choice not to defend a certain alliance unit, who have been under attack from fed black ops for months indicates that this not entirely the truth.
AEDC is allowed to have their reasons not to support a faction. they are not obligated to support someone they don't want to support. They are as free in their decisions as you and me.
 
Last edited:
I've been playing awhile now and I've noticed that on the whole Alliance factions are more sneaky in how they play the BGS. Can anyone enlighten me politely why this is the case.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this joke of an OP.
The ARRC are a small player faction with a tight knot of very passsionate players who never attack other factions unless there really isn't another option. The we will fight in open for the most part with only our less able commanders working in PG or Solo (a mode we frown upon BTW).
We are currently defending a few of our allies against potentially hundreds, if not thousands of hidden players working the BGS in admirable, if secretive, ways, when this joke appears. We are seeing tens of Alliance systems being retreated by these hidden cowards,

o7 Commander may the light of truth blind you!
 
"The Bomb" is the Code's overwrought appeal for help, posted here and elsewhere, which drew players from all and led them to murder RMC ships in all its systems until it was practically destroyed. I fought like hell to counteract the drop in influence but even when I pulled back to a single system there wasn't any way to stop it. That's the part when you had already walked away.

Gurney Slade flipped to the Feds, where now a Fed player faction in in control. Nice win there for AEDC! Of the other systems Flechti had rebounded, last I saw, but I stay out of that neighborhood these days unless I have no choice.



Yes. I am very sure. It's not something I'm likely to forget. Because unlike AEDC I was paying attention to the aftermath. See "consequences", above.
Not sure about all that stuff but the current CODE attacks are down to one player faction poking the bear from out of Reorte and Orerre and it wasn't the AEDC.

o7
 
Not sure about all that stuff but the current CODE attacks are down to one player faction poking the bear from out of Reorte and Orerre and it wasn't the AEDC.
The big difference in the current fiasco is that it goes:

1. Poke the bear.
2. Deal with the trouble.

The earlier fiasco never made it to step 2, unless Step 2 was "Run away, pretend this never happened, and deny any responsibility".
 
The big difference in the current fiasco is that it goes:

1. Poke the bear.
2. Deal with the trouble.

The earlier fiasco never made it to step 2, unless Step 2 was "Run away, pretend this never happened, and deny any responsibility".
Interesting comparison. I've had quite a bit of interaction with both sides of the current 'fiasco' and it's been interesting to see how each side handles themselves. I have a lot of time for the TCF, I like the bold way they approach the game. I hope they are getting some support from their allies.
 
I have a lot of time for the TCF, I like the bold way they approach the game. I hope they are getting some support from their allies.
I can't speak for anyone else - and I was surprised to be asked - but I did have a pending day between wars when I was able to pitch in at one system.
 
Top Bottom