Zounds of new players will start with Odyssey, a pack of them will be interested in BGS. And ofc they want to start a faction. But where.
Squadrons and supporting Minor Factions
- Thread starter Misty_Dark
- Start date
Zounds of new players will start with Odyssey, a pack of them will be interested in BGS. And ofc they want to start a faction. But where.
that is what I also would consider is a sensible approach, to try and make the best of an undesired situation, until you start to combine stuff like saying A or <insert threat!>
It's already been said previously by another contributor, that even if both sides have equal numbers, that a smaller attacking faction has advantage over larger defending faction.
With the current PMF application system, the presence of a squadron that's aligned with an NPC minor faction is irrelevant. Again, I'm neither saying that's a good or bad thing. I'm pointing out a fact. And I'm highlighting a fact that a squadron is not a permanent thing. In real world geopolitics, France has existed since 1955 (fifth French republic). Legally the 4th French republic stopped existing and was replaced by a successor. Before we got our PMF, if our squadron was aligned with say Tau Ceti Cheeseaholic Party and then the system and all surrounding systems were taken over by a huge PMF, if we don't want a fight on our hands, we can just screenshot our leaderboard, make a new squadron and delete the old one. Then either align with the new PMF or move elsewhere. If we choose to do nothing, and stick at it, that's fine, but we need to accept responsibility for that choice and be aware we are now in effect a guerrilla group, kinda. 2 factions can either with each other, against each other, or a mixture of the two. It might be that both sides agree which systems they will and will not actively fight for, in effect carving up the area. Again, I'm not saying anyone should do those things. I'm just pointing out what they could do.
The BGS mechanics are currently what they are. Whether we like that, for all intents and purposes, is irrelevant. We can of course campaign for alterations, and that might work, but it might not. Not liking an aspect of a game doesn't make it go away. There's a few things about ED I could grumble about, but, that wouldn't make the issue go away, so it would be a waste of my energy.
You've said your group are not keen on changing allegiances, or relocating. And that's understandable. But you have that choice. The other group does not.
There are a lot of 1 player squadrons that have prolonged period of activity and are aligned to a system that nobody is in. How would Frontier draw a line between "claimed" and "unclaimed" systems? What if it's a squadron that took a 1 month exploration trip after being in their "home" system for 2 years? No activity would be found for a month so some might say it has been abandoned. Our own previous home system had a PMF in and they had 3 systems but based on traffic reports they never appeared to play there, or never appeared to play at all, or never appeared to leave the system. It's not easy to tell what's going on currently.
They block a starter PMF going to a system with a PMF so new folks have a start. A PMF is permanent and cross platform. A squadron is temporary and one platform. Permanent trumps temporary. Only time a PMF is removed is if a player group is found to have multiple, and then all of theirs are removed, squatting ones and their main one. I'm not personally aware of that being used but that doesn't mean it hasn't been used.
I like the idea of expansion time being proportionate to faction size. Larger ones have longer, to help boost smaller ones. Which metric(s) would you propose to be used as an indicator of size? Number of controlled systems, number of controlled assets?
Would the idea of distance from home system, similar to power play, also help? The further a system is from home system, the harder it is to get.
Changing the system to some factions need 50% influence to expand and some need 75%, could get confusing. If that speeds up the rate of expansion, that speeds up the rate that systems gain the presence of a player faction, thus reducing the number of candidate systems a PMF could apply to start in. That was my main reason for objecting to it.
With your proposal, which factions would have 50% and which would have 75%? If a faction can get 50% of a system, they're not far off from 60%, at which point, a war starts with the controlling faction, and a win would get them the system overall. Changing it to 50% could result in a lot more systems having player faction presence but without player control, and then that could either mean they get too big to manage, or they suddenly take control of a large number of systems. Any change needs to have desirable effects for the long term. A short term gain for a long term loss could in the end make the system worse.
I agree overall the mechanics needs tweaking. We will all have ideas of what might work, and all be passionate about our ideas. Considering the BGS isn't fully understood yet but has been inferred from experimentation, means that we can't accurately foresee what effects any of our proposed changes will make. Any change needs to work for the majority of players and I'd say the majority of the types of players too. Keeping the games versatility will be essential to its longevity. A few games I've known have tweaked a mechanic to cater to one vocal subset of players and ended up hæmorrhaging player numbers in general as a result. Needing to change a mechanic, isn't the same as needing to change it this way, or that way, or that other way.
I'd agree with your idea goemon of disbanding player minor factions that are inactive. What metrics do you propose could be used for that? What length of time, and what threshold of activity would you say would constitute inactivity?
Our group runs guilds in 2 MMORPGs, and they have a finite number of player spots. A disproportionate number of players in those are military personnel, so, once a year, we send a message out giving them a 3 month window to show activity in game or hit us up with a message. If no luck, we send a message to them. If no luck after 2 months, we remove them, with the proviso they're free to return at any point.
Any time a big new fancy game comes out, a lot of multiplayer games get quieter. When Red Dead 2 came out, some bustling social zones were silent of players. Within a month they were busy again as players had had their fill of the new game.
It would need some form of balance, on the one hand rewarding those groups that are active, on the other hand not penalizing those who work long hours and play heavily at weekends, nor students/military who might be busy for a few weeks or months, nor smaller but very much enthusiastic player groups who might struggle due to smaller number of players to hit a threshold of activity.
Could they use something like "number of transactions done by a player", average number of transactions done in a week by players, maybe apply a multiplier for those in the faction's associated squadron player group, and those with any other squadron aligned to the Player Minor Faction.
My reasoning behind the multiplier is you might have a very quiet system controlled by a dormant PMF that hasn't had it's members on for a year, but random players passing through, sell items or hand in bounties. I have had a few times whereby en route for a mission with the cargo on board, in a random system, I've been Interdicted, seen the ship was easy to take, submitted, and had a bounty to hand in. In that situation, the controlling faction is arbitrary. Do we apply a multiplier to number of assets/systems too? Both presence and controlled. As we seemed to have figured out our previous home's PMF only stayed in control due to the activity of our group, based on traffic levels checked daily over 3 month period
With the current PMF application system, the presence of a squadron that's aligned with an NPC minor faction is irrelevant. Again, I'm neither saying that's a good or bad thing. I'm pointing out a fact. And I'm highlighting a fact that a squadron is not a permanent thing. In real world geopolitics, France has existed since 1955 (fifth French republic). Legally the 4th French republic stopped existing and was replaced by a successor. Before we got our PMF, if our squadron was aligned with say Tau Ceti Cheeseaholic Party and then the system and all surrounding systems were taken over by a huge PMF, if we don't want a fight on our hands, we can just screenshot our leaderboard, make a new squadron and delete the old one. Then either align with the new PMF or move elsewhere. If we choose to do nothing, and stick at it, that's fine, but we need to accept responsibility for that choice and be aware we are now in effect a guerrilla group, kinda. 2 factions can either with each other, against each other, or a mixture of the two. It might be that both sides agree which systems they will and will not actively fight for, in effect carving up the area. Again, I'm not saying anyone should do those things. I'm just pointing out what they could do.
The BGS mechanics are currently what they are. Whether we like that, for all intents and purposes, is irrelevant. We can of course campaign for alterations, and that might work, but it might not. Not liking an aspect of a game doesn't make it go away. There's a few things about ED I could grumble about, but, that wouldn't make the issue go away, so it would be a waste of my energy.
You've said your group are not keen on changing allegiances, or relocating. And that's understandable. But you have that choice. The other group does not.
There are a lot of 1 player squadrons that have prolonged period of activity and are aligned to a system that nobody is in. How would Frontier draw a line between "claimed" and "unclaimed" systems? What if it's a squadron that took a 1 month exploration trip after being in their "home" system for 2 years? No activity would be found for a month so some might say it has been abandoned. Our own previous home system had a PMF in and they had 3 systems but based on traffic reports they never appeared to play there, or never appeared to play at all, or never appeared to leave the system. It's not easy to tell what's going on currently.
They block a starter PMF going to a system with a PMF so new folks have a start. A PMF is permanent and cross platform. A squadron is temporary and one platform. Permanent trumps temporary. Only time a PMF is removed is if a player group is found to have multiple, and then all of theirs are removed, squatting ones and their main one. I'm not personally aware of that being used but that doesn't mean it hasn't been used.
I like the idea of expansion time being proportionate to faction size. Larger ones have longer, to help boost smaller ones. Which metric(s) would you propose to be used as an indicator of size? Number of controlled systems, number of controlled assets?
Would the idea of distance from home system, similar to power play, also help? The further a system is from home system, the harder it is to get.
Changing the system to some factions need 50% influence to expand and some need 75%, could get confusing. If that speeds up the rate of expansion, that speeds up the rate that systems gain the presence of a player faction, thus reducing the number of candidate systems a PMF could apply to start in. That was my main reason for objecting to it.
With your proposal, which factions would have 50% and which would have 75%? If a faction can get 50% of a system, they're not far off from 60%, at which point, a war starts with the controlling faction, and a win would get them the system overall. Changing it to 50% could result in a lot more systems having player faction presence but without player control, and then that could either mean they get too big to manage, or they suddenly take control of a large number of systems. Any change needs to have desirable effects for the long term. A short term gain for a long term loss could in the end make the system worse.
I agree overall the mechanics needs tweaking. We will all have ideas of what might work, and all be passionate about our ideas. Considering the BGS isn't fully understood yet but has been inferred from experimentation, means that we can't accurately foresee what effects any of our proposed changes will make. Any change needs to work for the majority of players and I'd say the majority of the types of players too. Keeping the games versatility will be essential to its longevity. A few games I've known have tweaked a mechanic to cater to one vocal subset of players and ended up hæmorrhaging player numbers in general as a result. Needing to change a mechanic, isn't the same as needing to change it this way, or that way, or that other way.
I'd agree with your idea goemon of disbanding player minor factions that are inactive. What metrics do you propose could be used for that? What length of time, and what threshold of activity would you say would constitute inactivity?
Our group runs guilds in 2 MMORPGs, and they have a finite number of player spots. A disproportionate number of players in those are military personnel, so, once a year, we send a message out giving them a 3 month window to show activity in game or hit us up with a message. If no luck, we send a message to them. If no luck after 2 months, we remove them, with the proviso they're free to return at any point.
Any time a big new fancy game comes out, a lot of multiplayer games get quieter. When Red Dead 2 came out, some bustling social zones were silent of players. Within a month they were busy again as players had had their fill of the new game.
It would need some form of balance, on the one hand rewarding those groups that are active, on the other hand not penalizing those who work long hours and play heavily at weekends, nor students/military who might be busy for a few weeks or months, nor smaller but very much enthusiastic player groups who might struggle due to smaller number of players to hit a threshold of activity.
Could they use something like "number of transactions done by a player", average number of transactions done in a week by players, maybe apply a multiplier for those in the faction's associated squadron player group, and those with any other squadron aligned to the Player Minor Faction.
My reasoning behind the multiplier is you might have a very quiet system controlled by a dormant PMF that hasn't had it's members on for a year, but random players passing through, sell items or hand in bounties. I have had a few times whereby en route for a mission with the cargo on board, in a random system, I've been Interdicted, seen the ship was easy to take, submitted, and had a bounty to hand in. In that situation, the controlling faction is arbitrary. Do we apply a multiplier to number of assets/systems too? Both presence and controlled. As we seemed to have figured out our previous home's PMF only stayed in control due to the activity of our group, based on traffic levels checked daily over 3 month period
once again, you have clearly not read my suggestion. nowhere in my suggestion would anyone expand at 50%.
Think I misread the link you put to https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/another-mechanism-to-expand-a-minor-faction.563802/
My bad, I was very tired when I read that, I apologise for the misunderstanding.
Would your expansion meter be per faction or per system? As it seems to be that a faction as a whole goes into expansion in all systems they have a presence regardless of the influence in each system.
How would that benefit new and smaller groups, as a relatively nearby larger group could just keep an eye on their neighbours and oppose all expansions, and the larger group would have the numbers to do so.
My bad, I was very tired when I read that, I apologise for the misunderstanding.
Would your expansion meter be per faction or per system? As it seems to be that a faction as a whole goes into expansion in all systems they have a presence regardless of the influence in each system.
How would that benefit new and smaller groups, as a relatively nearby larger group could just keep an eye on their neighbours and oppose all expansions, and the larger group would have the numbers to do so.
to oppose the expansion they would need to bring up the faction to over 50% influence, and as you previous stated, this is close to 60% to force a take over conflict, and the existing mechanism of 75% influence is still there. I am not saying it would be free, it should require some considerably amount of effort from the player group. Sure, this coudl be abused by a large player group starting out with a new minor faction, but as they grow larger, their sheer size of system to maintain, would make expansion using this methog slower and slower, as more and more time would be needed to maintain their existing systems.
But why would they need to oppose another faction expansion in the first place? the big group can expand at their pace, and when thye expand into a new system, they mostly work to gain control of it, and if this happens to all systems a small player groups exists in, then it is basically gfame for them at this moment. they can only maintain their presence,but they are now blocked from any expansion.
Sure, there is room for some grudge situations where one group decide to suppress another group, but they can already do that today, by supporting any other faction than the faction they oppose, and keep that faction in control... so nothing changes here either really.
My idea is still to about the smaller player groups, allowing them to co-exist and work on their factions without having to go head-to-head with the bigger player groups. That is why suggested to give head about up other player supported minor factions in target system etc, this is why I suggested an ALTERNATIVE method for a player group to expand a faction. so regardless of what happens in your home system, you request a new minor faction, adopt an existing one and to start work on it. regardless that there might already be player supported faction in control in your starting system. there would be no need to interact or co-operate with other players groups.
We can feel that happening too. It feels like every other month we see new factions appear in the vicinity, and it's beginning to feel quite crowded (though not to the extent of being stuck in the status quo... yet).
To get to the main topic, we've had this exact scenario back in 2015 or 2016, when PMFs were still relatively few and manually managed by FDev. We were the side of the "new guys popping up in 'someone's' system". It was a whole debacle with a whole lot of whining and toxicity for several weeks after which we asked FDev to move our faction elsewhere (which they did).
So I can absolutely understand OP, it's an incredibly frustrating experience for both sides. I 100% agree that there should be a check for both adopted and player-created PMFs before FD accept a new faction creation request.
It shouldn't block the creation of the faction, but there should definitely be a warning to at least provide a chance to the potential "invaders" to avoid some major headaches - especially as I expect FDev to be much less willing to move a faction to a different system nowadays.
The expansion meter should be per system, just like how expansion from influence is per system, I see no reason to have multiple expansions active, so this would just be another trigger to get into the expansion phase.
How this would benefit small player groups.
The big players groups can already today block small players grous from expanding.. They only need to keep these small player groups at below the influence level for expansion. With my suggestion, they now have to do ALOT more work to block another player group to expand. not only do they now ACTIVELY have to keep that player group above 50%, and below 75%. So this should be alot more work to accomplish the same thing. So why bother? it shoudl be reserved for grudges between player groups etc. and still it would require commitment to keep this up! not like it is today, where it should be relative easy to keep any faction below 75% influence to block an expansiuon. But this is bad question, the more important question is what happens when the big player groups expands into the home systems of the small player group, please tell me then how the current rules works in favour of the big group and basically shutdown the small player group.
So lets do scenario:
I am leading BIG BAD Player Group BBPG, we are 1000+ active players
You are "leading" you a small group of friends, of 5-10 players
You decide to create your own Minor Faction, do all due diligence, and pick system that no other players are present in. You start to work on your expansion and are happily incresing your influence and have just just taken over your home system, when me and my BBPG expands into your system.
BBPG gives ZERO care about you and your small group of players, we do not even care to responds to any kind of messages you are trying to send to us. We simply grab the system from you with our better understanding of BGS and number of active players, so we can put ~100 players to combat your player group. that is 10-20 players per active player in your group. You where doomed as soon as the game picked your system for BBPG to expand into.
Current rules:
You are stuck, as long as BBPG are in control, you will not be allowed to expand, as that will pass 60% influence and that will trigger a conflict for control over the system, and we can't have that, much easier to block you from ever reaching this state. It is quite possible to be a minority that have more than 60% influence, but why risk it? The reality is, your minor faction are stuck, and there is nothing you can really do. hopefully, you can own a couple of resources in the system, but that is it.
Suggested new rules:
You understand that you will not be owning your home system, but you can work with your minor faction and expand to other systems, that hopefully are not controlled by another big player group. BBPG would have no reason to block or otherwise mess with your effort to expand your minor faction, as if you are busy doing that, means that you are not actively trying to work your minor faction into control in your home system. You do not challenge them over control, they only reason they have to mess around with your minor faction is to maintain their control and since you only need to be below 50% influence, with no minimum cap, to work the expansion meter (which does not gives influence), you are no threat to BBPG. and you get to enjoy working your minor faction to new systems.
I say it again, the specific expansion meter missions that you will do to complete the expansion meter, should require some commitment, todo, we are not talking about running 4-5 mission, it should be atleast 20+ it is not supposed to be a fast track to skip the 75% influence, it is meant as an alternative, it is there to give small player groups options to co-exists with other player groups, without having to fight over control, which will almost always favour the big player groups. Or for situations when two player groups ends up having the same home system.
Given that currently there is a limit to 7 factions per system, unless placed by Frontier, what stops all places being filled up via this new system?
Let's say that BBPG have control of 20 systems and presence in 30 more. They can then expand from 30 systems, thus reducing the number of systems smaller factions could expand into. And I'm not sure how this solves the issue of "2 groups having 1 home system and not willing to share it".
They might expand and then have a new "home" system. But if 1 or 2 larger player groups then enter the system, and the smaller group a're forced to retreat to their official home system, they're back at square one. Only with less systems to expand to now. I suppose they could spend the time to get themselves into as many systems as possible so they're not having all their eggs in one basket, but if a lot of PMFs, and a lot of NPCMFs are doing that, then the available places to expand into will be reduced a lot quicker. What with 80% of all factions being able to expand, as most will have less than 50% in at least one system.
That then instead causes invasions to increase, in lieu of expansions, which will be won by those with larger player numbers, thus reducing the number of places that smaller factions will be located at, and potentially just speeding up the current issue
And exactly how does my suggestion make this any worse than the existing system?
if BBPG is only present in 30 systems (and only controlling 20) , then that means that that they have to spend the time to take over those systems. if they are only after epxanding to as many systems as possible, without actually caring to take over them, then I do not see any real issue, they expand into small player groups home system, and let the small player group have their own system, that is great, and BBPG can work the alternative expansion mechanic to trigger an expansion. In my world that would be an excellent outcome, but that is not how this these things usually happens, as once BBPG expands into the small player group system, then take it over, and then they work on expanding from that system, using the current mechanic. Leaving the small player group to do what?
By increasing the number of factions that can expand, from (currently) only those in control of any system AND having one system with 75% influence, to (proposal), all factions pretty much, that increases the number of expansions. Meaning that the number of systems with a free place in them goes down pretty quickly. Meaning that smaller groups could only expand via invasion, which requires player numbers, thus disadvantaging the smaller groups that would otherwise have benefited.
If you're a new group starting out, and can expand at less than 75%, by filling up a bar, that's great. But then, all factions with any system at less than 50% can do the same. Let's say a large faction has control of 20 systems and presence in a further 10. The chances are, at least one of those 10 system will be less than 50%. By virtue of them being a bigger group, they can do those 20 missions pretty quickly. They could even divvy it up, getting quarter of their players to exploit the mechanic in 1 system they don't yetcontrol. Why might they do this? Because if a system has 7 factions, nobody can expand into it. They could in effect fill up all the empty spots nearby pretty quickly. And that means that the smaller groups have less systems to expand into.
The larger group then just monitors which ones have an invasion, and counters that, while maintaining the others.
The only way I can see this mechanicworking is if therewere a limit, based on the number of systems you control. Ifyou control more than x systems you have to use the current system. If you control less than x, you have the proposal that you've thought of alongside the current one.
If a large player group uses this mechanic, the number of systems without a PMF in, will quickly decrease. As creating and placing a new PMF doesn't look if the existing system has a PMF there in control, but simply if it exists there at all.
If you're a new group starting out, and can expand at less than 75%, by filling up a bar, that's great. But then, all factions with any system at less than 50% can do the same. Let's say a large faction has control of 20 systems and presence in a further 10. The chances are, at least one of those 10 system will be less than 50%. By virtue of them being a bigger group, they can do those 20 missions pretty quickly. They could even divvy it up, getting quarter of their players to exploit the mechanic in 1 system they don't yetcontrol. Why might they do this? Because if a system has 7 factions, nobody can expand into it. They could in effect fill up all the empty spots nearby pretty quickly. And that means that the smaller groups have less systems to expand into.
The larger group then just monitors which ones have an invasion, and counters that, while maintaining the others.
The only way I can see this mechanicworking is if therewere a limit, based on the number of systems you control. Ifyou control more than x systems you have to use the current system. If you control less than x, you have the proposal that you've thought of alongside the current one.
If a large player group uses this mechanic, the number of systems without a PMF in, will quickly decrease. As creating and placing a new PMF doesn't look if the existing system has a PMF there in control, but simply if it exists there at all.
now you muddling the facts here, factions can still expand into systems that already have 7 factions present. that is called an invasion. I have seen several systems lately that due to this have had 8 factions...
Also, do you really need to be in control to be able to expand? I am pretty sure, we had a minor faction expanding from our system at 75% influence, while another minor faction was the controlling faction, as we won the mandatory conflict that happens at 60% influence. I think they maxed out at 80% influence. before brought them down again.
And still, how is different than keeping a low population system, and just cranking up the influence on that system? do not require that much work either, you would still be limited to one active expansion at a time.
It's difficult, but you can expand without controlling the system. It's much harder to do these days, but definitely still doable.
The point I think @RisingPhoenics is trying to get across is that by quickly fillling systems and turning most expansions into invasions, you'd give large player groups an even larger advantage:
It is much easier to make a faction lose a war (which immediately removes them from the system again) compared to preventing an expansion into a system altogether.
And on the monitoring side it's even easier, as you'll be warned "a day in advance" through the sudden pending war, at which point you have a chance to still rally people and foil the others' invasion, compared to having to monitor all the surrounding systems for a faction triggering a regular expansion that almost can't be stopped once it's started.
In short, I think such a system being introduced would briefly create chaos as expansions happen all over the place, filling nearly all systems. After that it would be all invasions, which I believe are more beneficial to larger groups than smaller ones.
And what is stopping this from happening today then? when we have 75 different minor factions that already controls over 50 systems each, and the top 4 controls over 100 systems...
I do not see any difference with the current system, and you but blame opn my system, that atelast would allow more factions to expand and work. And I can think of, is that you are part of the BIG PROBLEMATIC player groups, that are ACTUALLY denying small player groups their options to work on their minor factions. Nothing you have said here, have disproven my suggestion to allow for this. all you have not said, is plenty, and the only logical reason for this is that yuou think the vcurrent systemn where the big problematic pkayters groiuyps shoudl be allowed to be bullies and DENY other players to work on their minor factions. That is the core issue, all other stuff is a smokescreen to protect your BIG PLAYER GROUPS from the rest..
[edit]
According to the Wiki the bubble is roughly 20 000 inhabited systems
According to a twitter post by Frontier (Elite Dangerous), there was nearly 21 000 squadrons created in Elite Dangerous by the end of 2019.
So if every single Squadron, would request to have a Minor Faction in the game, that would mean that we could fill the entire bubble with player minor factions, one in each system...
And if we look at data from EDDB, we get that there is already 2500 player minor factions, so even if we distribute the bubble between all of those existing factions, then every faction would get ~8 systems each.
And if we look at the top player minor factions, we already have several that is in control of over 100 systems...
Some other fun data, is
32 player groups that are in control 50 or more systems, with the average being 75 systems...
75 player groups that are present in 50 or more systems, with the average being present 71 systems...
So the minor factions backed by the biggest player groups control some 2400 systems, that is some 12% of the bubble, and that is just 32 minor factions, which is ~1.3% of all player minor factions...
And you are worried about that more player groups woudl be allowed to expand... the system is already broken...
Pffft, okay, way to go sir. First of all, please fix all those typos, I'm having a hard time reading the first part (not because of feelings, but because there's so much gibberish).
Alright, let's break this down bit by bit for you:
You are correct and I agree that the current BGS definitely favors big player groups. I don't think I have said otherwise. However, I believe that your proposed system would just make the situation worse, for the reasons I've already stated.
You saying that the only reason I could possibly be against your proposed system is that I am part of a "big bad player group" is so ridiculous and false that I just won't respond to that. When someone criticises your proposals, you should read it and respond to it, not just say "you're just saying this because you're BAD! Smokescreen!"
(FYI our group has consistently had less than a dozen active members most of the time so we're definitely not a large group lol)
The statistics you brought up show how much large groups are favored. It's undeniable. I don't have an idea on how to fix it myself. But I believe that your idea would not fix it.
If you're gonna continue screaming and kicking instead of bringing rational arguments to the table, I'll just leave.
I feel with you about your conflict and hope we'll see a better system for placing player factions as much as you do. Cheers.
So using selective reading and bringin up your own conclusion on what is the proble, while ignoring what the core idea is about. is not having a meaning discussion, it is nitpicking and avoiding the core issue.
Nowhere have I said that my suggestion about an ALTERNATIVE method to expand, should be "easy". even when I say something about it should at MINIMUM be 20+ mission, that got then as fact that any big player group can do 20 missions with ease... without actually caring for what I wrote... nitpicking on details without even trying to understand the issue.
To give that system even a chance of not providing "easier" expansions though, it'd need the following:
- Something to prevent multiple factions in a system from expanding
- Trigger should be, like with current BGS, based on system size. So a large system would need a hundred or more missions, a small system maybe 10.
- The bar would, just like influence, need a limit on how much it can move in a single day.
- There needs to be a mechanic that allows players to counter the filling of the expansion bar, or else the mechanic would be inherently broken
Another general problem that I see with the expansion bar is that you want it to have it's own separate mission set. This would reduce the amount of things players can choose from to push for expansion. And if you allow non-mission activities to affect the expansion bar it would again become much easier to expand. It would also cause major headaches as on top of influences, faction managers would also have to watch the expansion bars of all factions due to activity of random passing CMDRs.
Given all of that, I think just overhauling the current BGS mechanics to also feature harsh limits for diminishing returns so that no matter how many players you add beyond a certain number, it makes almost no difference. This however would create it's own set of problems:
- Movement of influences/factions would decrease as you'd hit the daily limits much quicker (though perhaps this could be a good thing?)
- Large groups could then just spread out their players to assault/expand on multiple fronts. It would be much harder for them to make progress in any specific system, but they can then work on so many systems at once that it would become a minor issue.
Pretty much what s/he said
The current setup isn't ideal. But I fail to see how the idea would fix the original scenario without a number of other significant changes
If A, NPC minor faction supported by a squadron, have B, a newly created Player Minor Faction placed in their home system. And B don't want to "share" the home system, which at the current setup is all or nothing, in the sense of, by sharing the home system, B can never expand without taking it over. If B used the new mechanic, to expand to a second system, with the aim of controlling that over. Well a lot of other factions will be doing the same. As I vaguely recall that it was stated, the area in question has a fair few groups already. And it's likely that many of those groups will use the proposed mechanic to expand into neighbouring systems too, because why wouldn't they? Newly placed PMF B, would then see the number of systems in their area, with an empty spot, reduce pretty quickly, as not only will the big player groups expand, but also the medium ones too.
As it makes expansion easier for everyone, the number of possible expansions will increase dramatically, and then decrease due to their being nowhere to expand to. Once all spots are filled up, instead their are invasions.
If B, due to being newer and less experienced in BGS, or simply lower player numbers, don't get a system in time, they're forced to go the invasion route. With lower player numbers against established groups, successful invasions become harder, and they retreat back to their home system. And the original issue of who gets the home system becomes relevant again.
If B did manage to get into another system, well, other factions are still expanding/invading, and they spend their entire time fighting for one system.
It's not that I don't empathise with the situation that A and B are in. I just fail to see how making expansion easier for everyone, and I don't mean easy, I mean easier, and thus filling in the empty slots quicker than they currently are being filled in, would be beneficial to smaller groups
A randomly chosen faction I've seen a few times. Present in 50 systems. Controlling 48 systems. Inara says over 200 players in squadrons and 100 out of squadrons support them. That's the ones that have made an Inara account. Many more will not have.
48/50 for control is pretty high percentage.
15 of the systems they control, they have less than 50% influence in. And they have a fair number of players. With the proposedmechanic change you put forward, that's 15 systems they can expand from with the new system. In addition to the 7 systems they can currently expand from by virtue of 75% influence, though iirc, that only chooses one. But that's still a situation whereby they can go from 1 expansion at a time to 16.
Another faction, present in 3, controlling 1, all 3 have less than 50% influence, it's in the heart of the Federation.
According to Inara, there are 21 PMFs within 31ly radius of this particular factions home system. And there are 3 empty spots, all of which are in permit locked systems (attainable permits), 2 are lore heavy and maybe don't allow players to expand into, and 1 is firmly held by a larger player group. With the new system, they can't really expand anywhere it seems still. So they're forced into an invasion of an already occupied by players system.
This overhaul would need to work for the smaller groups. If smaller groups can't take over a system because of factors x, y, z, but they're a core mechanic of the game, then I'm not sure what to suggest.
Perhaps like Powerplay, it could become expensive to run a system the further from your home system. That in itself would have it's own issues, larger groups eliminating smaller bubbles within them etc, creating a homogenous area.
I'm not at all saying the system is perfect. But any time I have an idea myself of a tweak to it, without even discussing it with others, I start to see the problems with the idea.
The nearest idea I've come up with the is hope that the bubble (which is 50000+ systems but only 20000~ are inhabited), gets more inhabited systems with Odyssey, by virtue of small surface ports being built. This can then help expand the bubble. Even a roughly 5ly expansion would be maybe 10000 systems? Admittedly not highly populated, nor with many facilities, a scant shipyard etc, but, it's the frontier and newly established, and it would feel "realistic". Plus a large number of systems within the bubble itself could start to be filled in too
Our own home system, iirc, of the nearest 25 systems, only 3 are inhabited? And we're not even at the edge of the bubble, but 60ly in
The current setup isn't ideal. But I fail to see how the idea would fix the original scenario without a number of other significant changes
If A, NPC minor faction supported by a squadron, have B, a newly created Player Minor Faction placed in their home system. And B don't want to "share" the home system, which at the current setup is all or nothing, in the sense of, by sharing the home system, B can never expand without taking it over. If B used the new mechanic, to expand to a second system, with the aim of controlling that over. Well a lot of other factions will be doing the same. As I vaguely recall that it was stated, the area in question has a fair few groups already. And it's likely that many of those groups will use the proposed mechanic to expand into neighbouring systems too, because why wouldn't they? Newly placed PMF B, would then see the number of systems in their area, with an empty spot, reduce pretty quickly, as not only will the big player groups expand, but also the medium ones too.
As it makes expansion easier for everyone, the number of possible expansions will increase dramatically, and then decrease due to their being nowhere to expand to. Once all spots are filled up, instead their are invasions.
If B, due to being newer and less experienced in BGS, or simply lower player numbers, don't get a system in time, they're forced to go the invasion route. With lower player numbers against established groups, successful invasions become harder, and they retreat back to their home system. And the original issue of who gets the home system becomes relevant again.
If B did manage to get into another system, well, other factions are still expanding/invading, and they spend their entire time fighting for one system.
It's not that I don't empathise with the situation that A and B are in. I just fail to see how making expansion easier for everyone, and I don't mean easy, I mean easier, and thus filling in the empty slots quicker than they currently are being filled in, would be beneficial to smaller groups
A randomly chosen faction I've seen a few times. Present in 50 systems. Controlling 48 systems. Inara says over 200 players in squadrons and 100 out of squadrons support them. That's the ones that have made an Inara account. Many more will not have.
48/50 for control is pretty high percentage.
15 of the systems they control, they have less than 50% influence in. And they have a fair number of players. With the proposedmechanic change you put forward, that's 15 systems they can expand from with the new system. In addition to the 7 systems they can currently expand from by virtue of 75% influence, though iirc, that only chooses one. But that's still a situation whereby they can go from 1 expansion at a time to 16.
Another faction, present in 3, controlling 1, all 3 have less than 50% influence, it's in the heart of the Federation.
According to Inara, there are 21 PMFs within 31ly radius of this particular factions home system. And there are 3 empty spots, all of which are in permit locked systems (attainable permits), 2 are lore heavy and maybe don't allow players to expand into, and 1 is firmly held by a larger player group. With the new system, they can't really expand anywhere it seems still. So they're forced into an invasion of an already occupied by players system.
This overhaul would need to work for the smaller groups. If smaller groups can't take over a system because of factors x, y, z, but they're a core mechanic of the game, then I'm not sure what to suggest.
Perhaps like Powerplay, it could become expensive to run a system the further from your home system. That in itself would have it's own issues, larger groups eliminating smaller bubbles within them etc, creating a homogenous area.
I'm not at all saying the system is perfect. But any time I have an idea myself of a tweak to it, without even discussing it with others, I start to see the problems with the idea.
The nearest idea I've come up with the is hope that the bubble (which is 50000+ systems but only 20000~ are inhabited), gets more inhabited systems with Odyssey, by virtue of small surface ports being built. This can then help expand the bubble. Even a roughly 5ly expansion would be maybe 10000 systems? Admittedly not highly populated, nor with many facilities, a scant shipyard etc, but, it's the frontier and newly established, and it would feel "realistic". Plus a large number of systems within the bubble itself could start to be filled in too
Our own home system, iirc, of the nearest 25 systems, only 3 are inhabited? And we're not even at the edge of the bubble, but 60ly in
And that number has risen significantly since - there are well over 23,000 active squadrons just on PC alone - not counting, which that 21,000 figure did, squadrons which had since been disbanded, or which all the members were long-term inactive.
There's not even enough space for one system each. Of course, not every squadron wants a system, and many squadrons support NPC factions instead (some successfully).
Conversely, there are already far too many systems for the number of active players for anything but a "everyone gets a nice uncontested region of space" BGS game.
Well, the system is already biased in favour of large groups, because it's mostly a numbers game and they have the numbers. But preventing that would require an active diminishing returns mechanism against them - that made it both harder to expand to and to control multiple systems over and above the basically linear logistics challenge. And even that would only work against large single-faction groups: if it's easier to control a region with 3x10-system factions than it is to use 1x30 system faction, then it'd be one PMF and two NPC proxies controlling the space instead.
Small groups will get crushed regardless, unless they collectively unite to be a large coalition and crush the large group between them. And there are obvious reasons that doesn't happen either.