if one plays in solo.... so be it, but why are solo players allowed to impact Player Factions? seriously, just allow PFs to be influenced in ""OPEN"
There is no such thing as "Player Factions." All factions in the game, regardless of whether they were named by the Stellar Forge or by a group of players, are
NPC factions. They are owned by NPCs. They are controlled by NPCs. NPCs make
all the decisions. They are their own entities,
completely independent of players. They can even decide who their allies are, without consulting another player at all.
Players can choose to align
themselves with
any faction in the game, regardless of whether that faction was named by the Stellar Forge or a group of players. No player has
exclusive access to a faction, regardless of whether they named it or not. The actions of players can affect
any faction that interact with, regardless of mode or platform,
by design. This is because the
actual purpose of the BGS is to ensure that the background setting of this game isn't static, but dynamic,
not to serve as a proxy for territorial warfare.
Here's some fun
facts about factions, both Stellar Forge named and not:
- There are 76,624 minor factions, of which only 1743 (2%) are player-named.
- Of those player-named factions, 813 (47%) don't even control a single system. Given how easy it is for a single BGS player to ensure the faction they support is control of the system if they're unopposed, these player-named factions are clearly either abandoned or, much more likely IMO, they were named by groups who have zero interest in manipulating the BGS, for any reason.
- Only 518 player-named factions (30%) control more than one star system. Again, given controlling factions tend to stay in control unless deliberately acted against, thanks to sheer inertia, this is more evidence that a significant majority of player-named factions aren't even being deliberately supported by players.
- One of the top ten larger factions is a Stellar-Forge named faction... and IMO three of those player-named factions follow the Stellar-Forge naming convections, so I'd never know they weren't player-named. This isn't surprising, given that at least one faction I'm familiar with (Crimson State Group) that is reported as "player-named" on the EDDB was actually Stellar-Forge named, and the player group that supported it petitioned Frontier to change some of its details in support of the narrative they'd successfully managed to create via the BGS.
- This proportion grows from 10% for the top ten, to 12% for the top 50, to 14% for the top 100, 17% of top 150, 22% of top 200, 26% of the top 300.
- For a better comparison: 10% for factions #1-10; 13% of factions #11-50; 16% of factions #51-100; 24% of factions #51-150; 34% of factions #151-200; 35% of factions #201-300; 50% of factions #301-400; and 75% of factions #401-500
- This isn't surprising, because there are a total of 2387 "interstellar empires" (a faction controlling more than one system) in the game currently.
It is ludicrous to suggest that because a small minority of players are using the BGS as a proxy for a territorial control game, Frontier should gut the
actual purpose of the BGS. Over 99% of factions in the game are
not player-named factions which are being actively supported by players, and every single one of them
needs to change over time. BGS "warfare" is
not the purpose of the BGS. It is
emergent gameplay, and emergent gameplay does not obviate the actual purpose of a game mechanism.
The most amusing thing about this IMO is that the changes you, and players like you, are continuously requesting is to make it
easier to use a defensive BGS strategy that will
inevitably backfire on you,
especially if an attacking group is, in any way,
competent at BGS manipulation.
You're essentially saying, "Hi! Frontier? I don't have a clue about the BGS, but I
really like PvP. A group of players are attacking a faction I support. Please make it easier for them to do so, while simultaneously making it easier for
me to shoot myself in the foot repeatedly. Thank you for your consideration."
