You didn't read the thread. Your lazy reply doesn't answer anything.
Frontier:Are fights during civil wars supposed to effect influence or change the outcome of the war?
- Thread starter GlyphGryph
- Start date
You didn't read the thread. Your lazy reply doesn't answer anything.
When they say that they want it to be a black box, all I can think is:
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN"
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN"
ciger
Banned
It certainly doesn't look like there is any background sim taking place, maybe except trading. The living, breathing universe is sure a great selling point but once hit with reality of how things work or rather don't work is a whole other thing. Looks like this game needs a crap load of polish...
I'm not surprised devs want to keep this black box. Explaining how it works will only make some people actively seek to exploit how it works, then the devs have to deal with complaints that the exploiters have an unfair advantage, and it's their fault for explaining the game mechanics... I'd bet good money that it is far more difficult to implement the background simulation in ways that aren't game-breaking or easily exploitable than the devs are given credit for.
Also, you are aware that not everything is finished in the game? New features still in development? It's a practical certainty that some things aren't fully fleshed out at the moment.
Also, you are aware that not everything is finished in the game? New features still in development? It's a practical certainty that some things aren't fully fleshed out at the moment.
I know the thread itself is about Civil Wars, but the post I replied to was asking about the background simulation in general. The link gives many clues to how the background simulation is working (or not working).
There's definitely more than just trading with the background simulation. Missions have a big impact on the state of each faction. Unfortunately, there's a bug with minor factions that assigns the changes to the wrong faction.
Call it a bug, or an oversight, but it seems pretty clear partaking in the conflict zone without getting contracts makes no difference to how the civil war ends. That's disappointing.
Is this game beta or full release? I'm not asking about new features, I'm asking right now, is E
in beta or is it commercially released?- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I think it's clear that it's more than a bug because the devs in the other thread don't see a problem, and that is disappointing. I do hope they will chime in here.
What does this have to do with anything? Just because the game is released doesn't mean it works the way you want it to, nor does it mean that any of the existing features will never be changed or improved. Did you think this game would be the complete-be-all-end-all version on release day? That is a naive position to say the least. Development of the game is ongoing. It has been stated by devs that many things fixed in .0x releases are random because they are mostly minor and thus easy to fix. Things that effect the whole galaxy are harder and are thus slated for 'major' increments (1.1, 1.2 etc.)
Why have the devs explain a mechanic now, when in the next couple of months there are going to be a couple of releases that will (probably) vastly change these things?
I was under the impression part of the reason they were added was that low influence factions, such as the one we're supporting here, could have a chance to win the civil war. It doesn't help much though if the conflict zones don't impact the result. (I still haven't seen them offer a mission)
I'm not sure if mission running can rightly be considered "background simulation" if it's only direct player actions moving numbers up and down. Unless those numbers tie into some sort of greater interaction somehow, it's no more background sim than the Ingress conflict is. It's still neat, don't get me wrong! But background sim implies there's actually something going on "behind the numbers", if you will.
Agreed, though. And at least in our war the side we're supporting isn't actually offering contracts.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Forget them explaining the mechanics, I'd just like to know which mechanics are actually included in the game at this point. If they came out and said "Hey, warzones aren't done yet, don't expect too much from them. We don't have factions expanding into other systems working correctly either - they can expand, but things break after that. Large chunks of the background sim are still missing, and even the states we have are fairly incomplete", I'd be cool with that. I mean, a bit disappointed with all our wasted effort, but at least we wouldn't waste any more time.
The problem seems to be that they are creating the appearance that features are implemented and "working" and included, right now, that actually... aren't.
Last edited:
I this depends on your definition of "working"
. I suppose my play style is more casual at the moment, I'm just exploring and pootling around - I don't want to be Emperor or President just yet (but think how awesome it would be if these roles could eventually be PC and not NPC!)I this depends on your definition of "working"
Yeah, its definitely mostly a problem for organized groups or those who are committing to one to system. When you're exploring and pootling around, as you put it, you won't notice any of these. It's not that they're working in any way, they're just relatively irrelevant concerns, and it's still the most fun way to play the game, imo.
I actually think it's pretty clear that the background sim is working to a large degree as there have been numerous experiments to this effect, and that many of the other changes are too random to be plausibly intentional.
Still, it's clear there are some bugs with some of the missions, and that kills counts do not matter in Conflict Zones, contracts/missions do.
Still, it's clear there are some bugs with some of the missions, and that kills counts do not matter in Conflict Zones, contracts/missions do.
I this depends on your definition of "working"
Oh my god. Are you trolling? I can't even tell.
Not intentionally, but on the other hand I don't take anything seriously, least of all discussions on the internet
I'd like to suggest that you go and read the description at https://store.elitedangerous.com/elite-dangerous.html, which is the official statement from Frontier as to how they view the release. Yes, it does indeed state that development is ongoing - but the example it uses of how the game is incomplete is the lack of planetary landings, i.e. major new features that we always knew would be delivered after the main release. There is no mention there of features already present in the game being broken or incomplete. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the game we have today is complete and fully functional within the feature set advertised.
Very specifically, the description of what you are supposed to get today if you buy the released game says: "each action has a consequence, and influences the galaxy around you." Present tense, not "In a few months, each action will have a consequence, etc." Is it unreasonable, therefore, to expect that fighting in conflict zones should have consequences and influence the galaxy around us? Is it unreasonable to ask the devs to explain whether the fact that we are unable to detect any consequences is because of a bug?
Because we are living now, not several months in the future, and we are trying to enjoy the game we have bought.
Last edited:
Well, things we know "work":
Trading with stations and Missions influence states
Trading with stations and Missions influences... influence
Civil wars can happen, though they seem incredibly bugged (no news references on start or ultimate results, no confirmed way for players to influence them with the obvious way being confirmed not to, luxuries traders flying through warzones)
High influence factions can expand into neighbouring systems, but those expanded factions can do nothing except wither and die.
While there's definitely some player responsiveness there, I'm not sure how much of that I would call background simulation. And even if I was being generous, I'd be hard pressed to say that it was working "to a large degree". Most of the bits of of it seem to be not working in some way or other.
It's an intriguing foundation, but background simulation implies there's stuff actually going on in the background - that stuff isn't just appearing from and going to nowhere, and the bits are actually interacting and changing on their own over time.
Last edited:
I know its a somewhat tired (and possibly somewhat semantic) argument - but you are arguing from the position that your interpretation of the way things should be is correct. As far as I can gather from this thread, fighting in civil war conflict zones effects who controls a station. Yes, eventually and logically, you'd think it should perhaps also have some factional effect. That doesn't mean the way it works now is 'wrong' or 'broken' - it not working the way you want it to is not a bug.
There's zero evidence for this and, in fact, from what little the devs have said it seems the opposite - fighting in civil war conflicts does NOT effect who controls the station. That is the problem. If there was any evidence for it impacting that, it wouldn't be an issue, but the devs had a post that said influence is what determines the outcome of the war.
Last edited:
OK, sorry that's my misunderstanding. Still, its difficult to call 'bug' without knowing the intention and I guess that's where you want devs to chime in. Are civil war conflict zones just INTENDED to be a way to earn some creds? Seems like a missed opportunity if so...
If they are intended as a way to earn some credits, that's even worse. It's got to be the least efficient and most dangerous way to earn credits in the game, since bounty hunting is usually only vs. one dude and pays out up to 6x as much per kill on average, and the exact same amount against the very easiest targets (sidewinders) as combat zones pay against the hardest (pythons and anacondas).
But basically "Are they working as intended or are they broken?" is exactly the thing we want to know.
Last edited: