Make me care about the BGS, please.

[John Sheridan]

Hello, I am genuinely looking for some thoughts and opinions on the Background Simulation. I absolutely love the changes that I have seen coming to the Background Simulation for Beyond Chapter 4. The new scenarios, states and all that stuff seem to be really awesome. I am quite pleased with it.

That said, in my relatively short amount of gaming hours playing Elite off and on I have failed to find reasons to care about the minor factions in and of themselves. For example, I might find that two democratic factions from the same home system and with the same superpower alliance are in an election. Why should I even care? The result is the exact same (isn't it?). I fail to see this "depth" that people are often talking about. The factions themselves are quite shallow.

Supporting one minor faction over another with the same government type and superpower alliance is completely arbitrary as far as I know. In a game that is supposed to be a simulation, this kills my suspension of disbelief a bit. If the factions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, then what are they having an election over?

Perhaps I am looking at things completely wrong and need to change my perspective. I would really appreciate some thoughts on the matter. Help me see this depth that people talk about.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Supporting one minor faction over another with the same government type and superpower alliance is completely arbitrary as far as I know. In a game that is supposed to be a simulation, this kills my suspension of disbelief a bit. If the factions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, then what are they having an election over?

Same as in the real world - who gets paid the ministerial salaries.

There are, over the scale of a system, differences between all stations being owned by the same native Federal Democracy and the stations being split between two different native Federal Democracies (because they can have different states). Depending on which (if any) other systems the factions are in there are different chances of global effects as well - this will get suppressed a bit in 3.3, but there are still possibilities. It's certainly much more minor than a change of ownership to a different government type, but there are subtle effects possible. With 75,000ish factions there are always going to be some very similar ones in there - but there are also very distinctive ones.

(Of course where a faction is adopted for RP reasons it doesn't necessarily matter how mechanically distinctive it is)



The depth is more in how the system as a whole - factions, states, markets, outfitting, missions, influence, etc. - interacts and can be accidentally or deliberately influenced in particular directions. That can be for personal profit, or for RP support of a particular faction, or for meta-gaming research purposes. The individual components are all relatively simple but the results aren't necessarily, which is what I find interesting. (It took me months of data collection and weeks of analysis to figure out how the whole market system works, and I suspect I'll need to re-do a lot of it for 3.3, but there are some very interesting local, regional and even bubble-wide scenarios it allows to happen, for example)

 

[Marcus Machiavelli]

Hello, I am genuinely looking for some thoughts and opinions on the Background Simulation. I absolutely love the changes that I have seen coming to the Background Simulation for Beyond Chapter 4. The new scenarios, states and all that stuff seem to be really awesome. I am quite pleased with it.

That said, in my relatively short amount of gaming hours playing Elite off and on I have failed to find reasons to care about the minor factions in and of themselves. For example, I might find that two democratic factions from the same home system and with the same superpower alliance are in an election. Why should I even care? The result is the exact same (isn't it?). I fail to see this "depth" that people are often talking about. The factions themselves are quite shallow.

Supporting one minor faction over another with the same government type and superpower alliance is completely arbitrary as far as I know. In a game that is supposed to be a simulation, this kills my suspension of disbelief a bit. If the factions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, then what are they having an election over?

Perhaps I am looking at things completely wrong and need to change my perspective. I would really appreciate some thoughts on the matter. Help me see this depth that people talk about.

Make your own faction and then you will care. You can do it here https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/440462-New-Player-Minor-Faction-System
Here is us https://inara.cz/squadron/793/ and I care and have for 3 years now.
Depth that you are talking about https://inara.cz/squadron-documents/793/131/

 

[Mxpower76]

I never cared about the BGS until I joined a player group. Now there's a sense of ownership and a point to running missions. Not just credit grinding.

 

[Sapyx]

Agreed - even if you don't care about the BGS, you might care about the side-effects various factions provide. Eg. do you like smuggling stuff? Then you might consider opposing Anarchies (who have nothing illegal and no cops, and therefore no smuggling) and supporting oppressive regimes eg. Prison Colonies, where half the goods are illegal.

For the example cited above, where two Fed Democracies are fighting an election: as Ian said, if you're a trader, having a diversity of station owners is a good thing because it increases the likelihood that at least one of the stations will be in Boom, with good trade prices and increased supply.

In terms of the question "what are these two factions fighting over": it is extremely rare that two native factions will be identical government type and alignment (eg the situation where there are two native Fed Democracies in the same system almost never occurs, except in the special circumstance of Sol system). A far more likely scenario is that one is native, and one is an invader from elsewhere. So in such a conflict, the "issue" they would be arguing about is whether or not autonomous local rule is better, or that the local rule is ineffective or corrupt and the system is better off getting help from outside.

It is true that it is hard to get motivated to support one side or the other in a conflict where nothing is actually at stake i.e. no stations or other assets are controlled by either faction, so the "winner" of the conflict will win nothing. I (and many other BGS watchers) would prefer that such conflicts simply didn't happen.

It is also difficult to comprehend when two factions of the same superpower allegiance go to war (eg. Fed Corporate vs Fed Democracy), and you go into a conflict Zone to find the Federal Navy shooting at the Federal Navy. That's just immersion-breakingly stupid. I'd have thought the whole point of belonging to a Superpower is that when your'e in trouble, the Superpower comes in and helps you fight your battles, and resolves conflicts with your fellow Superpower members without resorting to war.

 

[John Sheridan]

It is also difficult to comprehend when two factions of the same superpower allegiance go to war (eg. Fed Corporate vs Fed Democracy), and you go into a conflict Zone to find the Federal Navy shooting at the Federal Navy. That's just immersion-breakingly stupid. I'd have thought the whole point of belonging to a Superpower is that when your'e in trouble, the Superpower comes in and helps you fight your battles, and resolves conflicts with your fellow Superpower members without resorting to war.

I actually thought about bringing this up but I didn't want to complicate my post. That is such a good point though. I mean if Fed Corporate and Fed Democracy go to war every time they reach the same influence then how can they be allies under the same superpower? I'd think an Alliance Democracy and a Fed Democracy would have a lot more in common.

That said, maybe it's analogous to the Klingon civil war from Star Trek lol.

 

[John Sheridan]

Same as in the real world - who gets paid the ministerial salaries.

There are, over the scale of a system, differences between all stations being owned by the same native Federal Democracy and the stations being split between two different native Federal Democracies (because they can have different states). Depending on which (if any) other systems the factions are in there are different chances of global effects as well - this will get suppressed a bit in 3.3, but there are still possibilities. It's certainly much more minor than a change of ownership to a different government type, but there are subtle effects possible. With 75,000ish factions there are always going to be some very similar ones in there - but there are also very distinctive ones.

(Of course where a faction is adopted for RP reasons it doesn't necessarily matter how mechanically distinctive it is)



The depth is more in how the system as a whole - factions, states, markets, outfitting, missions, influence, etc. - interacts and can be accidentally or deliberately influenced in particular directions. That can be for personal profit, or for RP support of a particular faction, or for meta-gaming research purposes. The individual components are all relatively simple but the results aren't necessarily, which is what I find interesting. (It took me months of data collection and weeks of analysis to figure out how the whole market system works, and I suspect I'll need to re-do a lot of it for 3.3, but there are some very interesting local, regional and even bubble-wide scenarios it allows to happen, for example)

Thank you so much for the reply. See, this is why I posted. I feel as if there are still some things about the BGS I don't fully understand. What determines what stations a local minor faction will own. Is this something that stays constant?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

What determines what stations a local minor faction will own. Is this something that stays constant?

If two factions equalise influence, are both over 7%, and are not already in a conflict, they'll start a conflict.

If a faction loses a conflict, it must give its most valuable station [1] in that system to the winner. Over time this can either mix up station ownership between lots of factions, or tend to unify it under a single faction, depending on the pattern of player activity.

The type of the conflict depends on the factions. There are four types of faction - Social, Corporate, Authoritarian and Criminal. Factions of the same non-criminal type have elections, all other factions have wars (or civil wars if they're both from the same system, though the distinction is pretty minor). Almost always a faction's type is based on its government [2], but there are exceptions to the general rule. In 3.3 you'll be able to determine a faction's type without waiting for it to get into a set of conflicts by looking at the local news.

[1] This usually goes in the order orbital station > orbital outpost > planetary base > planetary settlement, but there can be exceptions. In 3.3 the assets each faction has at stake (if any) will be reported when the conflict starts.
[2] Social: Communist, Cooperative, Confederacy, Democracy, some Theocracies
Corporate: Corporation
Authoritarian: Patronage, Dictatorship, Prison Colony, Feudal, some Theocracies
Criminal: Anarchy

 

[Jmanis]

In my opinion, you're looking at it somewhat back-to-front. Rather than looking at a faction and thinking "Why should I care about this?", think about what you care about, and how a faction aligns to that.

Who are you? What's your motivations? Why do you care about things? Why do you not care about other things? Yes, there's an element of "roleplay" to it, but it doesn't need to extend much to be effective at guiding your BGS interests.

For me, my initial internal compass said "I'm an Imperial loyalist, with a penchant for military activity". I deliberately picked a "home" that was imperial-owned, but not in the Imperial core, so I could readily find "enemies". I supported the local Imperial factions in that system, but got most fun causing mayhem in the neighbouring Anarchy system, which would eventually be expanded to by my supported faction... war would break out and control would be seized.

Then Powerplay was announced, "Oh goody!" I thought somewhat naively before the real face of Powerplay would surface. Patreus seemed like my bag, so I "moved" to one of his control systems and while fortifying that system, I'd also seize another neighbouring system for the Empire, doing a whole bunch of massacre civilian missions and the like to overthrow the controllers (this is before Hostile meant you couldn't dock).

PMFs were then announced, and a few mates were also playing by this stage. I distinctly remember thinking "Well, we're somewhat militant, and there's no Dictatorships in our old home, which is more thematic for us, so lets get one put in.". This was rather timely, as the homeworld would go to the dogs and nearly be lost to an anarchy faction, but we returned to save the day, just as our faction got added, which fit a nice narrative of our faction being a "Martial Law" type force. Eventually we'd get control, stabilise the system, and begin to seize more neighbouring worlds. We also "didn't get along" with other Imperial dictatorships, furthering our narrative of being somewhat "Isolationist". But we were never "Written into" the faction so to speak, rather me and my mates always felt our "group" fit better as a group of independent pilots "pulling the strings" in a cloak/dagger style arrangement. Our faction benefitted by our good grace and nothing further, and the idea was if we decided to move on, it was akin to us no longer investing in that faction for "reasons unknown".

tl;dr we like fighting for the Empire, but have no love for other Imperial factions, which is how we play the game. So we don't pick factions to support based on that, rather we pursue our own internally consistent narrative, and a faction or two just happen to fit in with that.

 

[John Sheridan]

What about the minor factions of the Sol System? Shouldn't the Federal Congress, Sol Constitution Party, Sol Nationalists, Sol Workers' Party and Mother Gaia have some kind of description? I mean, surely I am not crazy for thinking there should be some depth here. I want to know about the differences between these factions. I seem to be the only one who finds this an issue lol.

 

[Sapyx]

What about the minor factions of the Sol System? Shouldn't the Federal Congress, Sol Constitution Party, Sol Nationalists, Sol Workers' Party and Mother Gaia have some kind of description? I mean, surely I am not crazy for thinking there should be some depth here. I want to know about the differences between these factions. I seem to be the only one who finds this an issue lol.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of scope for adding such descriptions, and no scope at all for adding any actual differences, in terms of different party policies affecting the supply of goods in the Commodities market for stations they control. And for the parties in Sol, you've really got all you need to know about them right in their names. I'd imagine them to be something like:

Federal Congress - A Centrist "federalist" party, emphasis on maintaining the status quo and promoting the needs of the Federation as a whole rather than the specific needs of Sol. Pro Corporate.

Sol Constitution Party - Centre-right. Emphasis on exerting Sol's rights as already enshrined under the Federal Charter. Likely to be pro-Corporate and anti-Imperial.

Sol Nationalists - Right-wing. Strong emphasis on recognizing Earth as the cradle of Humanity keeping Sol the "first among equals" within the Federation. Most likely to advocate for expanding the Federation, by force if necessary, to counter Imperial expansionism and for using the Federal Military to enforce Federal military rule on vacillating Federation members.

Sol Worker's Party - Left-wing. Anti-Corporate, strong emphasis on increased democratization of the Federation and reduction in Corporate influence.

Mother Gaia - Radical Left, akin to the "Green parties" of 21st century politics and as found on many other planets in ED. Pro-environmentalism, strong emphasis on social justice, restriction and/or elimination of Corporate influence in Federation politics. Pushes "Prime Directive style" agenda restricting interfering with alien lifeforms on other planets.

Unfortunately, political changes in Sol system are now impossible as the BGS there has been frozen; no further elections or asset-switching is possible. So "working the BGS" in Sol system is now completely pointless, because nothing will actually change any more. The same is also true for Alioth and Achenar.

One curious outcome of this speculation is that Sol (the most powerful and influential Federation member) is currently dominated by Left-of-Centre style politics, whereas the current Federation President is much more philosophically aligned to the two "Right-wing" parties. This must make for some interesting Earth-government vs Federation-government debates.

 

[John Sheridan]

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of scope for adding such descriptions, and no scope at all for adding any actual differences, in terms of different party policies affecting the supply of goods in the Commodities market for stations they control. And for the parties in Sol, you've really got all you need to know about them right in their names. I'd imagine them to be something like:

Federal Congress - A Centrist "federalist" party, emphasis on maintaining the status quo and promoting the needs of the Federation as a whole rather than the specific needs of Sol. Pro Corporate.

Sol Constitution Party - Centre-right. Emphasis on exerting Sol's rights as already enshrined under the Federal Charter. Likely to be pro-Corporate and anti-Imperial.

Sol Nationalists - Right-wing. Strong emphasis on recognizing Earth as the cradle of Humanity keeping Sol the "first among equals" within the Federation. Most likely to advocate for expanding the Federation, by force if necessary, to counter Imperial expansionism and for using the Federal Military to enforce Federal military rule on vacillating Federation members.

Sol Worker's Party - Left-wing. Anti-Corporate, strong emphasis on increased democratization of the Federation and reduction in Corporate influence.

Mother Gaia - Radical Left, akin to the "Green parties" of 21st century politics and as found on many other planets in ED. Pro-environmentalism, strong emphasis on social justice, restriction and/or elimination of Corporate influence in Federation politics. Pushes "Prime Directive style" agenda restricting interfering with alien lifeforms on other planets.

Unfortunately, political changes in Sol system are now impossible as the BGS there has been frozen; no further elections or asset-switching is possible. So "working the BGS" in Sol system is now completely pointless, because nothing will actually change any more. The same is also true for Alioth and Achenar.

One curious outcome of this speculation is that Sol (the most powerful and influential Federation member) is currently dominated by Left-of-Centre style politics, whereas the current Federation President is much more philosophically aligned to the two "Right-wing" parties. This must make for some interesting Earth-government vs Federation-government debates.

I appreciate the reply. I genuinely mean that. Unfortunately however, you made all of that up. I suppose I will simply not find the depth I am looking for in the BGS. I should just accept that.

 

[John Sheridan]

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of scope for adding such descriptions, and no scope at all for adding any actual differences, in terms of different party policies affecting the supply of goods in the Commodities market for stations they control. And for the parties in Sol, you've really got all you need to know about them right in their names. I'd imagine them to be something like:

Federal Congress - A Centrist "federalist" party, emphasis on maintaining the status quo and promoting the needs of the Federation as a whole rather than the specific needs of Sol. Pro Corporate.

Sol Constitution Party - Centre-right. Emphasis on exerting Sol's rights as already enshrined under the Federal Charter. Likely to be pro-Corporate and anti-Imperial.

Sol Nationalists - Right-wing. Strong emphasis on recognizing Earth as the cradle of Humanity keeping Sol the "first among equals" within the Federation. Most likely to advocate for expanding the Federation, by force if necessary, to counter Imperial expansionism and for using the Federal Military to enforce Federal military rule on vacillating Federation members.

Sol Worker's Party - Left-wing. Anti-Corporate, strong emphasis on increased democratization of the Federation and reduction in Corporate influence.

Mother Gaia - Radical Left, akin to the "Green parties" of 21st century politics and as found on many other planets in ED. Pro-environmentalism, strong emphasis on social justice, restriction and/or elimination of Corporate influence in Federation politics. Pushes "Prime Directive style" agenda restricting interfering with alien lifeforms on other planets.

Unfortunately, political changes in Sol system are now impossible as the BGS there has been frozen; no further elections or asset-switching is possible. So "working the BGS" in Sol system is now completely pointless, because nothing will actually change any more. The same is also true for Alioth and Achenar.

One curious outcome of this speculation is that Sol (the most powerful and influential Federation member) is currently dominated by Left-of-Centre style politics, whereas the current Federation President is much more philosophically aligned to the two "Right-wing" parties. This must make for some interesting Earth-government vs Federation-government debates.

I just noticed the last part of your comment. Is the BGS being frozen in Sol and those other systems intentional?

 

[ocheda]

Hello, I am genuinely looking for some thoughts and opinions on the Background Simulation. I absolutely love the changes that I have seen coming to the Background Simulation for Beyond Chapter 4. The new scenarios, states and all that stuff seem to be really awesome. I am quite pleased with it.

That said, in my relatively short amount of gaming hours playing Elite off and on I have failed to find reasons to care about the minor factions in and of themselves. For example, I might find that two democratic factions from the same home system and with the same superpower alliance are in an election. Why should I even care? The result is the exact same (isn't it?). I fail to see this "depth" that people are often talking about. The factions themselves are quite shallow.

Supporting one minor faction over another with the same government type and superpower alliance is completely arbitrary as far as I know. In a game that is supposed to be a simulation, this kills my suspension of disbelief a bit. If the factions are, for all intents and purposes, identical, then what are they having an election over?

Perhaps I am looking at things completely wrong and need to change my perspective. I would really appreciate some thoughts on the matter. Help me see this depth that people talk about.

I thing the FDevs has a lot of ideas for the BGS, but we need first the Squadrons implementation, and then they will be able to make things in that way

 

[Jmanis]

I just noticed the last part of your comment. Is the BGS being frozen in Sol and those other systems intentional?

Since they're lore-specific, probably.

https://community.elitedangerous.com/en/galnet/uid/57763e359657babe44d2ca84

Facece, the headquarters of the Imperial Navy, got flipped to an independent dictatorship. FD very quickly acted to undo this.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I just noticed the last part of your comment. Is the BGS being frozen in Sol and those other systems intentional?

Yes. The lock also prevents inbound expansions (but not Retreats if a non-native faction is already there), and also applies to Shinrarta Dezhra, Colonia and Ratraii.

 

[Sapyx]

The lock is there primarily to prevent lore-critical systems from being invaded by player groups or player-backed NPC minor factions (eg Earth being taken over by the Alliance). The "freezing" of civil wars and internal elections seems to be an unintended by-product of this, rather than an intentional decision.

Since they're lore-specific, probably.

https://community.elitedangerous.com/en/galnet/uid/57763e359657babe44d2ca84

Facece, the headquarters of the Imperial Navy, got flipped to an independent dictatorship. FD very quickly acted to undo this.

I'm pretty sure that was purely the result of Imperial players finally getting motivated to protect their own lore system, rather than direct action by FDev. Facece simply isn't important enough for FDev to take direct intervention on. If they didn't stop ConTrAiL taking over Anlave, the SOVMS taking over Tau Ceti, the Truckers taking over Epsilon Eridani, the Alliance taking over Ross 128 or Lave Radio taking over Lave, then they're not going to care a hoot about Facece either. Those systems I just named might be steeped in lore, but they're not lore-critical enough for FDev to ensure they stay nailed to the lore. You'll notice the "Commander Corrigendum" byline on that Galnet article; it's a player-written article, dating from the time when players and player groups could submit their own articles to Galnet.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The "freezing" of civil wars and internal elections seems to be an unintended by-product of this, rather than an intentional decision.

I'm not sure about that - I think the conflict blocking is also probably intentional, dating back to when outbound expansions did a "swap", so you could end up with non-native factions in the systems anyway.

 

[_Flin_]

It's like Football. You don't care unless you root for a team.

 

[Jmanis]

The lock is there primarily to prevent lore-critical systems from being invaded by player groups or player-backed NPC minor factions (eg Earth being taken over by the Alliance). The "freezing" of civil wars and internal elections seems to be an unintended by-product of this, rather than an intentional decision.



I'm pretty sure that was purely the result of Imperial players finally getting motivated to protect their own lore system, rather than direct action by FDev. Facece simply isn't important enough for FDev to take direct intervention on. If they didn't stop ConTrAiL taking over Anlave, the SOVMS taking over Tau Ceti, the Truckers taking over Epsilon Eridani, the Alliance taking over Ross 128 or Lave Radio taking over Lave, then they're not going to care a hoot about Facece either. Those systems I just named might be steeped in lore, but they're not lore-critical enough for FDev to ensure they stay nailed to the lore. You'll notice the "Commander Corrigendum" byline on that Galnet article; it's a player-written article, dating from the time when players and player groups could submit their own articles to Galnet.

Actually...
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-as-Independent?highlight=Allied+facece+order

And the official FD galnet news which preceded FD taking action to force a war between AFO and the Empire.

https://community.elitedangerous.com/en/galnet/uid/56b362d59657ba0664c00374

People were very angry about FD hand-of-god'ing it. People only cared about that war when FD thrust it into the spotlight, which greatly influenced the outcome