Your responses read a lot like "I'm all right Jack! - ...." (the rest of the saying is rude and would get me in trouble)
In game minor faction application pending application
- Thread starter NomCarver01
- Start date
Your responses read a lot like "I'm all right Jack! - ...." (the rest of the saying is rude and would get me in trouble)
Difference between random, adopted faction and pmf is only name.
So putting such stupid limits would only lead to adopting of multiple factions.
Oh, I cant expand my faction further because devs put some arbitrary, stupid limits, because little joes and michales were sad, because their homesystem was conquered by other people?
Ok, so once I hit a wall I will support second faction with fancy name/goverment/anything other what I like (example I very like system Tengri, just for name, and their faction, Warlods of Tengri, maybe time to support them a little
)
And sorry, but I completely agree with Shadowsnog, and I don't understand issues with current systems. Resources (systems) are limited, so even limit "only 1 system per faction" could lead to filling all systems with pmfs, especially including dead factions and factions with single supporter. And now I will repeat about possibility of support multiple factions
So putting such stupid limits would only lead to adopting of multiple factions.
Oh, I cant expand my faction further because devs put some arbitrary, stupid limits, because little joes and michales were sad, because their homesystem was conquered by other people?
Ok, so once I hit a wall I will support second faction with fancy name/goverment/anything other what I like (example I very like system Tengri, just for name, and their faction, Warlods of Tengri, maybe time to support them a little
) And sorry, but I completely agree with Shadowsnog, and I don't understand issues with current systems. Resources (systems) are limited, so even limit "only 1 system per faction" could lead to filling all systems with pmfs, especially including dead factions and factions with single supporter. And now I will repeat about possibility of support multiple factions
Last edited:
IRL, all empires have limits, and holdings at the periphery are often the hardest to maintain. One thing that is missing from pmfs*, is the cost of doing business. IRL, it costs the treasury to support the "empire", which sets limits.
Some CMDRs want to remain independent, so why force them into bigger groupings? Doing so could lead to to ever larger groupings until you end up with two competing super alliances, lots of neutrals who want to stay that way (good look with that, ask Holland and Belgium) and then you end up with either constant border wars or the war to end all wars. Believe it or not, not all players like constant wars.
Factions could be restricted to one system (but PP would not be) and instead players could build new world colonies as their empire, to build and sustain. That would give everyone some "skin in the game" and long term goals if desired.
* I know that there is no real ownership of any in game faction by a pmf, they are often just aligned/supported and named that way.
Steve
Some CMDRs want to remain independent, so why force them into bigger groupings? Doing so could lead to to ever larger groupings until you end up with two competing super alliances, lots of neutrals who want to stay that way (good look with that, ask Holland and Belgium) and then you end up with either constant border wars or the war to end all wars. Believe it or not, not all players like constant wars.
Factions could be restricted to one system (but PP would not be) and instead players could build new world colonies as their empire, to build and sustain. That would give everyone some "skin in the game" and long term goals if desired.
* I know that there is no real ownership of any in game faction by a pmf, they are often just aligned/supported and named that way.
Steve
youve got me there the old original sailor saying being "pull up the ladder!" (knowing jacks were still in the water)Your responses read a lot like "I'm all right Jack! - ...." (the rest of the saying is rude and would get me in trouble)
long ived tossed on the rolling main
Last edited:
The thing is, under the pre-3.0 BGS it was very difficult for a faction to just blob out by spamming expansions as a war or election in any of their systems could halt it, and the more systems they had, the more likely that was to happen - especially if they went around stepping on toes as committing to a constant series of wars taking over a smaller player group's home would stall their entire faction's efforts elsewhere - so if the larger faction didn't actually intend to make use of the place the smaller group called home, they generally had more to lose in getting themselves snarled up in a conflict.
Under the current BGS system, there are no natural brakes on a faction just permanently being in a state of expansion, and if a defending group wants to apply any leverage then they have to go on the offensive themselves into the rest of the larger faction's territory, where before they could have a faction-wide effect simply by defending/retaking their own system.
youve got me there the old original sailor saying being "pull up the ladder!" (knowing jacks were still in the water)
long ived tossed on the rolling main
25 years in the Andrew and I never heard that. Normally the expression is "I'm all right Jack, (four letter word) you!"
The main problem [1] with this is that it means that you end up with some very odd incentives:
- a group of 100 players supporting 1 faction can maintain a roughly 20 LY sphere
- a group of 100 players supporting 10 factions - if they're an alliance of a bunch of smaller groups - can maintain ten 20 LY spheres
- a group of 100 players supporting 100 factions can potentially maintain 100 spheres.
Groups like Powerplay BGS teams, or Communist Interstellar, who support faction types rather than specific factions effectively get a power boost over everyone else from this (and are already big enough not to need that!)
Restricting the home system benefits / expansion constraints to PMFs is potentially even worse - there's already an attitude among a significant minority of player groups that if it's not an official PMF you're "not allowed" to support it and your territory is fair game. Endorsing that attitude would make the "big groups stomp small groups" problem worse. Of course, there are plenty of long-abandoned PMFs which could be adopted in that scenario.
There's also the problem that there's only room for ~1000 20 LY spheres in the bubble, but there are more PMFs than that already. So it potentially makes the problem worse - if each faction regards the 20 LY around its home system as its by right, then they're more likely to come down hard on upstarts in that area ... and less likely to come into conflict with other groups of comparable power, because the overlap will either be non-existent or confined to a few border systems.
Ultimately the problem is that player group capabilities vary by a factor of about 50x-200x between the biggest group and a "top 1000" group (which is still large enough to likely want a PMF). No artificial balancing is going to change the fact that the biggest group has individual players whose skill, availability and motivation outclasses the entire "top 1000" group combined.
If you want to stop runaway expansion or excessive control, then the solution essentially has to be to make control of any system require active maintenance, because passing player traffic (by far the actual largest BGS force in the game!) has the effect of weakening the controlling faction. This is the position which Anarchy factions are in nowadays - but all other factions find their position reinforced by passing traffic by being in control of the system, so a player group can "control" 100 systems while only having to actively maintain a few of them, because non-aligned players do most of the actual work.
Whether "every faction requires as much maintenance as an Anarchy faction" is the game any BGS player actually wants I don't know. But it would mean that the big groups didn't have time to stomp small groups because the Really Big Group of players who don't care who runs the system would be stomping them...
[1] A secondary problem with specifically making it distance-based rather than system-count-based (not that that fixes the main issues) is that the bubble is nowhere near homogenous in terms of density, and it has edges - factions in the middle of the bubble on the brown-dwarf plane on the Empire/Federation border might have well over 100 inhabited systems within 20 LY, whereas a faction based out on the fringes of the bubble 200 LY above Sol might have no inhabited systems at all in one hemisphere, and maybe three or four in the other. Since you referenced the Thargoid War ... Thor and Leigong are a lot weaker than Indra or Raijin due to this.
As usual Ian you give a rational, statistically sound analysis to the issues of PMF involvement in the BGS. While we play live in a Dangerous galaxy where conflicts are settled n Conflict Zones and at Ballot boxes, it would be nice if F.Dev made it easier to communicate or collaborate with adjacent PMF's in an improved Diplomacy engine within the game itself. At the moment, third parties tend to fill that void with channels (that I am aware of) within the EDBGS and DCOH Discords - but even they can only work if others are aware of their existence. For the original OP, I recommend that they join the first of these Discords and ask questions of the gurus resident there. Then they may wish to adopt a Faction - Native or otherwise - and champion their interests, but I strongly urge them to research their home system carefully (in a less travelled /less contested corner of the bubble) and to ensure that their link is recognised in Inara as a 'Related' faction - unless, of course, they want to cause mayhem (and probably fail pretty quickly).
(Edited for typo's)
(Edited for typo's)
I like this idea, maybe not like "controlling faction decay and lose influence without active maintenance", but some random inf changes (so sometimes good, sometimes bad for players) "triggered" by npcs (or explain it whatever you want) traffic sounds good. Expansions could be finally like "once you conquered system you have to do something here", instead current "GG, you conquered system with 10 billions souls, if noone pass through this system you will hold 50% for eternity".
Last edited:
Just a few thoughts, not to be taken too seriously. Running alongside the BGS/pmfs there could be Merchantile Houses (MH) competing for market control (profit bonus) at stations/ports by exporting/importing/mining priority commodities. Missions would be initiate trade war, trade war and market control maintenance. A CMDR could belong to only one MH but any number of CMDRs could belong to a MH. This would give those interested in trade and mining the opportunity to establish trade empires (which would be limited in size due to ongoing maintenance required). MH and BGS missions would not affect each other. The amount of commodities to be traded would be broadly scaled to the population, but not linear.
I wouldn't be surprised if this particular detail was the exact nail in the coffin for PMF applications - a particular player group (who I shan't name) was being particularly open about this attitude with regards to some lore-important systems in the leadup to player factions being pulled - it was a thing that existed before without a doubt, but being so egregiously open about it on the forums and subreddit instead of keeping the sentiment private on their own discords was a new step.
The devs already had to make changes to the game mechanics in response to their BGS manipulation and attitude that a particular part of the sandbox "belonged" to them, so I absolutely can't blame the devs for slamming the door when they did it a second time.
I'm alright, Jack - Wikipedia
still we are going right back to the press gang laudanum & larboard side days of navel history when the non indigenous afgan poppy orignated in mitcham
when most jacks(sailors) were treated too a 2pennyhangover when they got home & would rather be at sea
(soz going off topic but it is about ships after all be it very old ones and not exactly common knowledge or "common dog" behaviour)
Last edited:
...indeed, not considering that the game doesn't provide much information regarding squadrons & linked/adopted PMFs... and the bizarre situations where factions at war in one system, spawn missions to support each other in a different one etc