And you are objectively, provably, wrong in that thought. Please move on or at least dig up.
Is gaining INFLUENCE of any use to players who don't care to muck about with the BGS?
- Thread starter n13L5
- Start date
And you are objectively, provably, wrong in that thought. Please move on or at least dig up.
If the BGS actually "meant" anything in ED, it would be relevant... but as it stands, there's not much real potential impact in terms of game play in general.
This could, however, be improved upon. If the faction system actually ever evolves into something meaningful, that is.
Being able to switch between the "Big 3" and change allegiances is a good example of this. Earn ranks that don't really mean diddly, etc.
This could, however, be improved upon. If the faction system actually ever evolves into something meaningful, that is.
Being able to switch between the "Big 3" and change allegiances is a good example of this. Earn ranks that don't really mean diddly, etc.
But for some players, it is the "gameplay in general."
It's already meaningful for a great many players.
This has nothing to do with the BGS.
To be short, asking for changes to something you don't understand is basically prayer.
Last edited:
The "Big 3" as in Empire, Federation and Alliance and changing allegiances freely have nothing to do with the BGS?
(Am I missing something here?)
Last edited:
The powers started affecting the BGS recently when the major power bounties started up. So, it can be said that it's now related in a way.
It's a stretch though. The BGS is generally about a minor faction or group of minor factions and their control over a system and the states that come with CMDR actions/inactions.
OK, I think I understand what you're getting at.
What I don't understand is how my point of it not being tied into directly influencing the game in some way to make it more impactful wouldn't be a good thing?
The 3 over-arch the minor factions, IMO- ultimately they control groups of systems (which is why minor factions are "minor") so this would be a good way to improve relevance, no?
Most of us who play the BGS are independents. I wouldn't like to see the major powers taking over my little slice of the bubble.
There are those who feed the Fed/Imp/Alliance machines though. Poor misguided sorts. Maybe one day, they'll see the light.
I don't recall seeing anyone say that it wouldn't.
With that said, it would basically negate Powerplay, which does the very thing you mention.
PP is pretty weak as it stands, really.
IMO all of these things are "loosely" tied into the game- but if brought together could really have direct impact and influence.
Choosing "allegiance" for example- shouldn't be some trivial thing people do just to gain access to ships by earning "ranks" (which mean absolutely nothing after you've obtained them).
I'm referring to improving the quality of the game overall- either it needs to be improved, or it should be scrapped. Minor faction influence really doesn't have much direct meaning either- it doesn't give you exclusive access to anything, or potential reduction in prices for goods or services, etc. All it really does is change the color of ships on your screen.
If it meant anything? What exactly does that mean? Why try for the high score in Pac man? Why try to get all achievements in a game? Why try to have the first faction in Elite Dangerous with 100 assets? http://www.sagittarius-eye.com/alliance-company-acquires-over-100-dockable-assets/
Last edited:
Most of us who play the BGS are independents. I wouldn't like to see the major powers taking over my little slice of the bubble.
There are those who feed the Fed/Imp/Alliance machines though. Poor misguided sorts. Maybe one day, they'll see the light.
Dont worry Motti, your application to join the Alliance wont be on hold forever!
Is PP weak? Yes, but it's what FD put in the game to give players that "Overarching, strategic, balanced gameplay". They *can't* tie the BGS into that sort of thing because the BGS:
- Is completely unbalanced; and
- Was designed to simulate a malleable universe, not provide an overarching strategy.
)Like 100th Monkey said, I don't think anyone who plays the BGS would not want it to be *more* impactful and *more* core to the gameplay. But for me, I'm realistic about the fact this was never FD's design goal.
When Powerplay launched, the trailer made me think "Man, the BGS is going to have huge input to this through missions etc"....
But it never did, and it's why PP is a lemon for me... the BGS offers a far greater diversity of activities and meaningful progress (I refer to it as the expand-war-stabilise cycle, but that's just me). I tried Powerplay for a while and got bored. Very bored, very fast.
That fighting spirit of Independent groups makes for great attributes in Imperial Slaves
Last edited:
Is PP weak? Yes, but it's what FD put in the game to give players that "Overarching, strategic, balanced gameplay". They *can't* tie the BGS into that sort of thing because the BGS:
- Is completely unbalanced; and
- Was designed to simulate a malleable universe, not provide an overarching strategy.
FD have acknowledged in BGS livestreams that the way players latched onto Factions and the mechanics around influence was slightly unexpected; they didn't realise players would care so much for the *minor* factions.
Like 100th Monkey said, I don't think anyone who plays the BGS would not want it to be *more* impactful and *more* core to the gameplay. But for me, I'm realistic about the fact this was never FD's design goal.
When Powerplay launched, the trailer made me think "Man, the BGS is going to have huge input to this through missions etc"....
https://i.imgur.com/SdJdNen.png
But it never did, and it's why PP is a lemon for me... the BGS offers a far greater diversity of activities and meaningful progress (I refer to it as the expand-war-stabilise cycle, but that's just me). I tried Powerplay for a while and got bored. Very bored, very fast.
That fighting spirit of Independent groups makes for great attributes in Imperial Slaves
I disagree completely with that line...as soon as the game went live, the devs were very interested in what the players were doing with the BGS...and worked extremely hard to get it working properly. If you have a link to the video of that particular statement...I would enjoy seeing that.
...and they did link PP to the BGS early on...and PP destroyed the BGS for systems that had PP activities occuring in them.
Last edited:
Certainly do. I'll pull it out in a bit, though I'll note I *am* paraphrasing. Word-for-word that's not what FD said, but it's the broad effect.
To paraphrase slightly less, the primary purpose of the BGS is to simulate the living, breathing galaxy.
EDIT: That specific line you highlighted, I don't have a direct quote for. I'm certain I heard it somewhere, but it may have been a more off-the-cuff comment. Either way, i've semi-removed it
However, the bgs livestream at the very least backs the concept that the primary purpose of the BGS is to simulate a living, breathing galaxy. Also doesn't change my stance that like others, I *wish* it was more central.
Last edited:
Dont worry Motti, your application to join the Alliance wont be on hold forever!
Well, of the three, it would be my preference.
Certainly do. I'll pull it out in a bit, though I'll note I *am* paraphrasing. Word-for-word that's not what FD said, but it's the broad effect.
To paraphrase slightly less, the primary purpose of the BGS is to simulate the living, breathing galaxy.
EDIT: That specific line you highlighted, I don't have a direct quote for. I'm certain I heard it somewhere, but it may have been a more off-the-cuff comment. Either way, i've semi-removed it
However, the bgs livestream at the very least backs the concept that the primary purpose of the BGS is to simulate a living, breathing galaxy. Also doesn't change my stance that like others, I *wish* it was more central.
Yes, the BGS does give a semblance of a living galaxy...but if the devs had not wanted the players to push it around...they would never have attached it to the missions...and the minor factions...the fact that they did, means they expected the players to cooperate and bring about change...regardles of how you might want to paraphrase (some would say, twist) their words.
If they had not wanted the community to 'play the BGS', they could have stopped us right from release...but they reached out to many player groups and let us start figuring out the system...and not very far from that, around the 6 month mark, they actually released enough of the system information, to help everyone play the game the way they designed it.
Last edited:
The only passive movement is the 15% drop in the expanding system after an expansion. Otherwise it is all player activity. The "passive" increase is most likely coming from CMDRs getting rich trading food and meds, or running missions.
C&P reduced murder a bit, but mission destination effects had a far greater impact.
Oh yes, they do. They just don't like the outcome occasionally. <cough>Ross 128</cough>
It is a question of learning how it works, what mechanics achieve what, and then the more complex strategy and tactics, especially when dealing with multi-system factions. The only way outcome is not guaranteed is that you can't predict (accurately) other player activity. In a quiet system where you're the only CMDR working the BGS, the outcome is 100% guaranteed.
No. You may be confusing being locked out of mission effects during war time, which with destination effects has become more punishing There have been no BGS-related combat changes at all. (unless you mean a slightly reduced amount of murder, but its effects are easily overstated)
LOL x 2