New PMF's have been stopped since patch 14

CMDR Serra

CMDR Serra
Adopting NPC factions is indeed possible - see Marlinist factions being adopted by a Squadron (with FDev's apparent blessing).
However not all PMFs accept that this situation - see invasion and subsequent harrassment of Marlinist systems by nearby PMF based on "No PMF, no claim" argument.
 

SteveWW57

SteveWW57
Vardaugas said:
Infinite expansion is more a BGS problem than PMF. Only real problem of PMFs are the embarrassingly cringe system descriptions and faction names that would fit more to squadrons or children's fan fiction.
Click to expand...
I think I would rather see strange, cringeworthy names than bland ones. FDev seem to have a spreadsheet or something to produce faction names.

Steve
 

DemiserofD

D
As far as I'm concerned, the real problem is that the only way to support a pmf is to expand to more systems. This was a very poorly thought out idea to begin with, because it essentially directly conflicts with power play, and it leads to Binary thinking. Players don't support one superpower, and accept the morally gray universe that is elite, instead they support Aisling's angels, ignore the fabric of the universe, and ignore power play too, because they consider their actions for their pmf to be good enough.

In my opinion, they need to almost entirely prevent bgs expansion, and replace it with the ability to make long-term improvements to the population and wealth of the system that directly benefit allies to that faction. Only when a system is completely maxed out should that pmf be allowed to expand further.
 

Screemonster

Screemonster
The only real issue that PMFs have technically is a metagame one - particularly, you can tell which factions are player factions because they have names that don't fit the usual pattern. This has led to groups that have PMFs forming gentlemen's agreements among each other to leave each others' territory alone, while any system that doesn't yet have a PMF in it is fair game. Literally, I've been in squadron discords where people have straight-up said "nobody's got that system yet" because it didn't have a PMF even when there's been half a dozen carriers parked in the system with the name of a squadron pledged to one of the NPC factions there.

Which means that people who've adopted a faction and have quietly been supporting it can end up with a target on their back with diplomatic discussions amounting to "have you got a flag?"

In game they're not treated as special. This is as it should be.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Screemonster said:
The only real issue that PMFs have technically is a metagame one - particularly, you can tell which factions are player factions because they have names that don't fit the usual pattern. This has led to groups that have PMFs forming gentlemen's agreements among each other to leave each others' territory alone, while any system that doesn't yet have a PMF in it is fair game. Literally, I've been in squadron discords where people have straight-up said "nobody's got that system yet" because it didn't have a PMF even when there's been half a dozen carriers parked in the system with the name of a squadron pledged to one of the NPC factions there.

Which means that people who've adopted a faction and have quietly been supporting it can end up with a target on their back with diplomatic discussions amounting to "have you got a flag?"
Click to expand...
Of course, that often works the other way when Powerplay is involved - a nice NPC corporation will be supported, some upstart PMF of the wrong government type is going to be crushed even harder than a random faction because it's the only way to stop them being a long-term problem. Or even without - I've seen PMF supporters complain that it was deeply unfair that the player group attacking them hadn't even adopted a faction because it meant that they couldn't attack back.

As you say, there's no in-game special treatment so it always ends up as "who has the bigger army for the longest" in the end, but people will always complain that there should be some extra rules when they don't.
 

Screemonster

Screemonster
Ian Doncaster said:
Or even without - I've seen PMF supporters complain that it was deeply unfair that the player group attacking them hadn't even adopted a faction because it meant that they couldn't attack back.
Click to expand...
Honestly this part is why I think base-building would have been a better layer to the game than PMFs as a squadron-level territory building game. Like powerplay, where you can't undermine without being pledged to someone else yourself, it'd be trivial to construct such that you'd have to take part to take part, and those not taking part would largely not have to worry about it.
 

SteveWW57

SteveWW57
Ian Doncaster said:
Of course, that often works the other way when Powerplay is involved - a nice NPC corporation will be supported, some upstart PMF of the wrong government type is going to be crushed even harder than a random faction because it's the only way to stop them being a long-term problem. Or even without - I've seen PMF supporters complain that it was deeply unfair that the player group attacking them hadn't even adopted a faction because it meant that they couldn't attack back.

As you say, there's no in-game special treatment so it always ends up as "who has the bigger army for the longest" in the end, but people will always complain that there should be some extra rules when they don't.
Click to expand...
There are occasions when a new pmf will drop into an area and start expanding. When they expand into a system with another, active pmf, they immediately race for system control without any communication. When asked about what they are are doing have an excuse like "it's closer to our home system that yours so it is our right to have control of the system".

Steve
 

Shabine

Shabine
SteveWW57 said:
There are occasions when a new pmf will drop into an area and start expanding. When they expand into a system with another, active pmf, they immediately race for system control without any communication. When asked about what they are are doing have an excuse like "it's closer to our home system that yours so it is our right to have control of the system".
Click to expand...
Going back to EVE Online... imagine if the new PMF dropped into a system and were immediately greeted by the local gatecamp, which they can't escape from, that instantly liquidates them because they didn't properly plan to methodically purge the locals and take control of the system by removing TCUs and launching their own structures. This is the real problem with Elite's multiplayer: I can affect things without ever having to even see anyone else, including my rivals.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Screemonster said:
Honestly this part is why I think base-building would have been a better layer to the game than PMFs as a squadron-level territory building game. Like powerplay, where you can't undermine without being pledged to someone else yourself, it'd be trivial to construct such that you'd have to take part to take part, and those not taking part would largely not have to worry about it.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's not as if Frontier's support for the BGS as a squadron-level territory building game extends much beyond "yes, you could play it as one" and "fine, we'll close off the most obvious things which are exploits if it's played that way". There's no benefits to either the squadron or the faction from controlling tens of systems, or even any in-game leaderboards to show off the biggest ones.

Having to intend to affect the BGS to be able to affect the BGS would completely break it in its Background role, which is still the more important of the things it does.
 

SteveWW57

SteveWW57
Shabine said:
Going back to EVE Online... imagine if the new PMF dropped into a system and were immediately greeted by the local gatecamp, which they can't escape from, that instantly liquidates them because they didn't properly plan to methodically purge the locals and take control of the system by removing TCUs and launching their own structures. This is the real problem with Elite's multiplayer: I can affect things without ever having to even see anyone else, including my rivals.
Click to expand...
Hidden opponents, especially those that undermine your BGS, are a pain to deal with. They cannot be identified, they cannot be reasoned with, and they will not stop.

Until they find better things to do.

Steve
 

Screemonster

Screemonster
Ian Doncaster said:
Having to intend to affect the BGS to be able to affect the BGS would completely break it in its Background role, which is still the more important of the things it does.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The background part of it is good. It's less good when it's brought into the foreground, leading to situations like that time some of the bigger factions deliberately UA bombed their own stations in backwater systems where casual players wouldn't care enough to fetch meta-alloys and fix them, thereby completely locking those systems down to passive traffic.

That's not to say adopting factions and pushing them is bad, mind. Or supporting an ideology, or a superpower. It's an interesting layer of the game.
But it's a different meta-layer that often runs headfirst into "I and my buddies want to have a base and plant some flags that specifically have our name on it".
 
Last edited:

Walter2

Walter2
SteveWW57 said:
Hidden opponents, especially those that undermine your BGS, are a pain to deal with. They cannot be identified, they cannot be reasoned with, and they will not stop.

Until they find better things to do.

Steve
Click to expand...
They don't have to be that hidden. Any opposition group that doesn't want to talk to anyone (or hasn't worked out how to talk to anyone) has the same effect.
 

metatheurgist

metatheurgist
SteveWW57 said:
I think I would rather see strange, cringeworthy names than bland ones. FDev seem to have a spreadsheet or something to produce faction names.

Steve
Click to expand...
Bland names are way better than derivative, unoriginal, IP stealing, pop culture references. Not to mention the derisible fanfic that has polluted system descriptions. Original faction names were of course pulled from a list and put together procedurally, like everything else.

If PMFs don't matter then I guess we're all good to revert them all to proc names and remove their system descriptions, right? Right? ;) 🔥
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom