I am concerned that the ships I killed are not going to contribute towards the future of the system!
Frontier:Are fights during civil wars supposed to effect influence or change the outcome of the war?
- Thread starter GlyphGryph
- Start date
Sure. I am aware of that. But I did this 500 over a longer time. More than 2 weeks. There are days when there are significant less players in the system.
So focusing on those days should have shown a significance. Like I say I found 0 correlation. So yes it is true it can be as you say. But I consider it rather unlikely judge from my latest observation. The fact that Frontier doesn't tells us anything thing (an effective way to hide bugs in a system that is completly broken ) makes it very hard to get a final conclusion on anything. But from all I can tell 0 reputation (thats very sure. I was neutral the whole time) and 0 influence.
yesterday the high conflicts zones were completely scrubbed of enemies multiple times. Nevermind having an influence in the war, that should have nearly ended it.
My understanding is that Civil Wars shouldn't affect influence but instead allow a station to change hands.
I would assume that the conflict zone you are fighting in would have an effect on who ends up controlling the nearby station when the war is over.
I would assume that the conflict zone you are fighting in would have an effect on who ends up controlling the nearby station when the war is over.
You know, people can be fighting for the other side as well (you might not have seen, they could be in another instance, playing group, or solo). It could be that in this conflict zone both sides were fairly evenly balanced.
Also, while you are blowing things up in the conflict zone, there could be people running missions for the other side, trading, or bounty hunting nav points or whatever that is also countering your efforts.
Unless there's another group hard at work on the other side the actions of random players are less likely to favour one side over the other. You can't rule out what other players may be doing of course but some things are more likely than others.
Could be, due to time constraints on meeting the 30th anniversary deadline, that for now parts of the simulation is covered by either direct dev adjustment or some RNG placeholder. It does seem a bit unfinished, and I do not think it is "working as intended".
If FD would shed some light on their background simulation, what is implemented, what need adjustment and what is still not entirely implemented, that'd be great. Until then, people will smell something is a bit fishy and the conspiracy theories flourish.
If FD would shed some light on their background simulation, what is implemented, what need adjustment and what is still not entirely implemented, that'd be great. Until then, people will smell something is a bit fishy and the conspiracy theories flourish.
Maybe the end result doesn't depend on influence? Taking a station might not be related to how much influence is gained or lost. Maybe that's just a threshold to the war.
Possible, but incredibly unlikely. They'd all have to be playing in solo or private - they'd all have to have known immediately a civil war started - they'd all have to have decided to get involved right away and en mass, and they'd all have to be doing it completely silently.
I do suspect that having posted this, we're now getting some active trade interference. Which doesn't explain the problem, it makes it worse. Civil war is supposed to be an opportunity for one faction to take a station from another - if the total war effort of 60+ players is completely swamped by a few players trading with a station, despite team efforts killing every npc trader heading there, that's a serious problem. It still has the same result - civil war combat zones are pointless, and fighting in them accomplishes nothing.
And people definitely aren't running missions or bounting hunting, because a) the faction is so low influence they offer no missions, and b) they aren't a system authority, so bounty hunting RES or Nav Points can't help them.
I guarantee you 100% that this conflict did not have both sides evenly balanced.
This is what I would assume, have Frontier not just recently posted in these very forums that influence determines the outcome of the war. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed pretty clear.
Last edited:
I appreciate them adding in more ways for us to shoot mans in space (even if they are NPC mans) but you'd think a conflict zone within a contested system would have some sort of effect upon the overall conflict.
Currently wondering the same thing with the civil war that's currently ongoing in Beta Hydri between the "Beta Hydri Movement" and "Beta Hydri Corporation".
Both Factions are at 0% and don't have a station under their control, yet there are conflict zones around the area.
I'd love to know if anything we do within the conflict zones has any impact on the faction standings, or if it is just another way to earn credits, via combat bonds.
Both Factions are at 0% and don't have a station under their control, yet there are conflict zones around the area.
I'd love to know if anything we do within the conflict zones has any impact on the faction standings, or if it is just another way to earn credits, via combat bonds.
Still hoping from some response from the devs on this.
So yeah, about that input from the people who "know" how the background simulation "works"...
You need to be running warzone missions for the party you want to support, just killing npc's and players in warzones has no reputation gain, and as a result has no effect on their influence within the system, nor any real effect on the war.
I have run into a problem in Kappa Fornacis as a Federation player, neither of the federation aligned parties in the zone are offering warzone missions, leaving Federation players no way to affect politics or support the federation interests in the system. Meanwhile players supporting the farmers are getting warzone missions allowing them to increase their influence and gain reputation while doing so.
I have run into a problem in Kappa Fornacis as a Federation player, neither of the federation aligned parties in the zone are offering warzone missions, leaving Federation players no way to affect politics or support the federation interests in the system. Meanwhile players supporting the farmers are getting warzone missions allowing them to increase their influence and gain reputation while doing so.
1. Actual fighting in the war SHOULD have an effect on the outcome, regardless of whoever sent you there to fight or it it's for a mission or not. However, as you say you don't gain any influence from the fighting alone. As devs have said, the wars are all driven by influence. This would make it seem like actually going out and doing the fighting is having zero effect on the outcome of the war. This makes no sense at all and seems pretty darn broken to me. You shouldn't need to take a mission to be able to help.
2. And yet, despite all the farmer support and the missions they were running, Kappa Fornacis was railroaded into a loss for the largely player supported farmers. This was despite, as you say, there being a lack of federal missions to take in order to shift influence.
Broken mission spawns or not, the influence system still seems arbitrary at worst, and half-complete at best.
There has been a response, still trying to find the post, it was a while ago.
In essence, it was confirmed that the outcome of conflicts was not pre-determined or pre-written by FD.
That isn't a response to the issue raised in this thread, but a separate one. This problem is specifically about civil war war zones. And if that response is true, it still doesn't mean the outcome is not handled manually by Frontier or that warzones will have any impact.