Overhaul of pvp, bgs, and powerplay

[Screemonster]

Since everyone else is already putting the boots to the "get rid of modes" hotel california argument, I'll pick on a different part of the OP and just say that the idea of having to pledge yourself to a minor faction in order to affect influence is bleeding stupid too, as it removes the random noise element from passing traffic, and arguably tosses out the entire reason the BGS was created in the first place - to have the galaxy react to the actions of players. The 4D chess game that is BGS manipulation is entirely emergent from this original concept. The whole point is that your actions have an impact on the galaxy around you, whether those actions are intentional or not.

Also, for those of us that support a particular ideology rather than a faction such as Communism Interstellar, the various anarchists, superpower supporters that don't care about any particular minor faction as long as it's Alliance/Federal/Imperial, and so on, pledging to a single minor faction in some backwater somewhere is also dumb. There's a reason my squadron isn't pledged to a faction.
Hell, even people that are pledged to a particular minor faction will want to do work for others at times for various reasons - to push down their own influence and prevent unwanted expansions, to get the other factions in their systems into conflicts so they'll be in a better position to take their assets later, to push factions in other desirable systems into retreat so they can later expand there, to cause conflicts in other player factions' territories to keep them busy, and so on. There's a lot of BGS work that doesn't rely upon directly contributing to your own faction.
(This is partly why I wish the BGS leaderboard was simply based on the number of inf+ generated by faction members regardless of whether it's for the pledged faction or not)

 

[MK Regular]

Since everyone else is already putting the boots to the "get rid of modes" hotel california argument, I'll pick on a different part of the OP and just say that the idea of having to pledge yourself to a minor faction in order to affect influence is bleeding stupid too, as it removes the random noise element from passing traffic, and arguably tosses out the entire reason the BGS was created in the first place - to have the galaxy react to the actions of players. The 4D chess game that is BGS manipulation is entirely emergent from this original concept. The whole point is that your actions have an impact on the galaxy around you, whether those actions are intentional or not.

Also, for those of us that support a particular ideology rather than a faction such as Communism Interstellar, the various anarchists, superpower supporters that don't care about any particular minor faction as long as it's Alliance/Federal/Imperial, and so on, pledging to a single minor faction in some backwater somewhere is also dumb. There's a reason my squadron isn't pledged to a faction.
Hell, even people that are pledged to a particular minor faction will want to do work for others at times for various reasons - to push down their own influence and prevent unwanted expansions, to get the other factions in their systems into conflicts so they'll be in a better position to take their assets later, to push factions in other desirable systems into retreat so they can later expand there, to cause conflicts in other player factions' territories to keep them busy, and so on. There's a lot of BGS work that doesn't rely upon directly contributing to your own faction.
(This is partly why I wish the BGS leaderboard was simply based on the number of inf+ generated by faction members regardless of whether it's for the pledged faction or not)

Between all the various arguments on how "working the BGS without being able to be attacked is cheating", I am more and more convinced that the the people who keep starting threads about "open only BGS" don't really care about the BGS as long as they can use it as an excuse to use other people as their content.

Has anyone tried making a post pertaining to making BGS and PP solo/pg only? Like, going on about how players should only be flying unarmed and unshielded ships with the lightest possible modules etc... and use all of the arguments for "open only" to show just how absurd the sentiment is?

You know what, screw it, I'm going to do this myself. If people are going to keep trying to push this nonsense, I might as well have some fun with it.

Edit: hehehehehehe

 

[Rubbernuke]

"Keep in mind, these things I suggested would only exist while the player maintains their pledge and, in some cases, rank. So for the case of the Engineer, it would be a convenient Engineer location with a smattering of recipes generally related to the Power's theme. Abandon the Power or remain inactive for long enough and you can no longer access that engineer.

It wouldn't be a "get to this to unlock", it would be "at this you have access", and that access can go away. Imagine if there were Engineers on the fringes between territories, giving service to whoever controls the system - those would be hotly contested. Imagine being able to skip some Engineering unlocks because your Power offers an alternate path for loyalty."

(apologies, pressed reply too early and can't insert quotes in an edit)

I like the idea a lot- but there are problems with base motivation and also how Powerplay works.

Ironically your idea would work best in a volatile Powerplay where systems change hands quickly- currently the big powers hold onto systems almost forever and is what prompted Sandros proposal. One solution might be to seed more engineers in smaller powers, since they often inhabit poor systems. The second problem is that engineers and powers don't move about much. So an engineer placed near Asling today will still be there in 30 cycles time. Lastly Powerplay CC value is based on distance, so unless that engineer has a valuable system to go with it, you could gain an engineer but wipe out a lot of CC. This could play both ways; it could be seen as a trade off (engineer or CC), but what would most likely happen is players again slurping up engineers before thinking about the CC (so again strategy comes second to gains). If you can decouple CC value of a system with the engineer in it (pop them on a megaship perhaps) that might sort that problem.

Plus "at this you have access" would not work as you think it would. This is what will happen:

First, you will have two types of Powerplay pledge: those who want the engineer and those who play 'to win' (i..e want to conquer but do it sustainably). The former will instantly prep an Power engineer system. The latter will see the former as 5C or randoms and this will cause a great deal of friction.

Merits are like water these days, so gaining R5 is easy (one / two hours VO mining to buy) or AFK turretboat somewhere for a day. One previous attack I made 30K in a week, and I was the lowest contributor in my group. With deep pockets the former group will bulldoze the engineer. Strategic pledges of the latter group then have to foot the bill.

Players will gain access for that week, and engineer while they have access. Some will complain of the excessive grind and that these things are double gated. Once they have done all the R5 plus experimentals they then defect to the next power and repeat the same cycle.

So you can see, motivating people using exclusive modules / engineering is not a good way to get players to play Powerplay 'correctly'. Powerplay is schizophrenic in that it needs strategic plans and players to do the right thing, but then gives bonuses and modules that encourage the opposite.