Half Duration War for Neglected bottom crawler factions

[Becky]

Please change uncontributed wars and civil wars to bottom crawling factions to half duration.

Having factions sitting at 2-3% influence for weeks on end is a bit pointless; if both factions have no influence left and no pilot's federation commanders will fight for them, the war should end sooner as they have run out of cash, resources and propaganda leaflets.

Thanks.

 

[Starwolfe]

BGS needs a rework with conflicts anyway.

If a faction is under 5% and owns a property the controlling faction should be contending them to claim it.

Then just have it so a conflict can't start unless one of the factions owns a property.

Should solve most issues.


But I agree, a conflict should end early if there is no influence available to resolve it.

 

[MBaldelli]

BGS needs a rework with conflicts anyway.

If a faction is under 5% and owns a property the controlling faction should be contending them to claim it.

Then just have it so a conflict can't start unless one of the factions owns a property.

Should solve most issues.

But I agree, a conflict should end early if there is no influence available to resolve it.

I'll endorse this and the OP. This whole wibbly wobbly thing in BGS needs to be looked into. If anything I'm finding this need for < 5% factions having any real estate in the the system at all tells me that the coding for this is needlessly player sadistic as the grind for credits and reputation.

 

[Becky]

I'll endorse this and the OP. This whole wibbly wobbly thing in BGS needs to be looked into. If anything I'm finding this need for < 5% factions having any real estate in the the system at all tells me that the coding for this is needlessly player sadistic as the grind for credits and reputation.

As far as i'm aware; the bgs was designed to "give the galaxy life" - i don't think frontier expected as much player engagement and manipulation as has happened - If you ask me the whole bgs moves far too fast paced, it should be more like powerplay changing on a weekly basis, giving people time to plan and react; but it's unlikely we'll get that any time soon.. if at all.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Tricky one this, I think. It would certainly make sense for wars to end as draws once it's not practical for one faction to get a sufficient lead over another. It would also certainly make sense for conflicts to only start if at least one of the factions owned an asset. I'm pretty sure both those changes would be very popular out here in Colonia, as they'd cut out 95% of conflicts and shorten a lot of the rest, making it a lot easier for factions to sit peacefully in their systems without the constant risk of asset-free wars.

But ... on the other hand, without wars and conflicts putting a brake on expansions, or dragging factions down to retreat thresholds, you'd likely see rapid chain expansion from the controlling factions of any reasonably consolidated low population system, which would fill most systems up to 7 factions very quickly. It would also be much easier for undermaintained factions to sprawl uncontrollably - whereas now a war chain leading to collapse is more likely.

Additionally, there are a lot of Engineering-related items which are easiest to get from CZs. A change which made CZs much rarer would potentially be unpopular in its own right, but would also concentrate players to the smaller number which did exist.

If a faction is under 5% and owns a property the controlling faction should be contending them to claim it.

I think that would make it too easy for controlling factions in most systems to consolidate all stations under their control, even without conscious player intervention ... which would then with the other changes largely eliminate inter-faction conflicts in the longer term. There's perhaps a question of whether a faction presently in control of the system would want to risk a control war - in which it must stake the controlling station! - just to win a minor outpost.

Mixed-ownership systems are I think more interesting to visit from a non-BGS point of view, too, and this change would tend to make them unstable.

 

[Becky]

There should definitely be a way to put a pending expansion into investment rather than suffer an unwanted expansion, followed by weeks of trying to retreat (which can be thwarted by random player activities).

we can cancel a retreat by raising influence, but cancelling an expansion is virtually impossible.

We recently had an unwanted expansion, put ourselves into a conflict to try and cancel it and the expansion just got put on hold and then the pending countdown resumed after the conflict was finished and we'd reduced influence below 65% and expanded anyway.

It's really stupid the way it is.

 

[damon8r351]

BGS needs a rework with conflicts anyway.

If a faction is under 5% and owns a property the controlling faction should be contending them to claim it.

Then just have it so a conflict can't start unless one of the factions owns a property.

Should solve most issues.


But I agree, a conflict should end early if there is no influence available to resolve it.

There really does need to be a way for a faction that players have pushed into control in a system to take over other starports in the system without paradoxically supporting an enemy faction to raise them up or undermine your own faction to lower them down so influences equalize into a conflict.