What was the point of locking down the Blackmount Outpost?
- Thread starter A D
- Start date
Its not that bad with engineering now anyway. I flew my FDL down there a few months ago for a tune up.
It's still there. I didn't land a good enough roll on DD5s, so it's staying parked until I find more materials. Which I've done twice, and engineered two other ships instead.
I don't even know why I own my FDL anymore. Lol
I have too many ships I don't fly.
I only really fly my DBX taxi/explorer, or my Python, or my Anaconda these days. Mostly the Annie.
Its not that bad with engineering now anyway. I flew my FDL down there a few months ago for a tune up.
It's still there. I didn't land a good enough roll on DD5s, so it's staying parked until I find more materials. Which I've done twice, and engineered two other ships instead.
I don't even know why I own my FDL anymore. Lol
I have too many ships I don't fly.
I only really fly my DBX taxi/explorer, or my Python, or my Anaconda these days. Mostly the Annie.
Yeah, I only got a 40% roll on the FSD, so I get 18 LY with Lightweight Armor. I ran out of chemical manipulators.
Is that really the case with the BGS, though? Maybe someone from the BGS thread can comment, but I remember reading that BGS gains are capped, but losses aren't. That means you can have thousands of people turn in bounties to counteract a lockdown, but every day the positive impact has a ceiling and once it reaches a certain point, all the extra effort evaporates.
Meanwhile, on the other side, people trying to wreck a system can make it plunge as far as they like, especially by using some BGS trickery to maximize losses.
Which means when the math is done, the efforts of thousands can be undone by a handful of CMDRs working together. A 5% gain for the security forces totally negated by a 30% loss, for example. That seems to be what's going on here, and if that's the case no amount of "emergent gameplay" can balance it, because it's inherently unbalanced.
Again I welcome any passing BGS gurus to weigh in.
I actually have no problem with the lockdown though I do believe it should be able to be countered slightly quicker. Having a one week CG effectively lose 50% of it's time, (minimum), seems excessive to me, maybe around 24 hours shorter if criteria are met would work better. Saying that though I am having a blast in my multi role Python doing the bounty hunting CG instead.
Last edited by a moderator:
No reason really... for some reason people think I left the game?
Repping for breaking forum rules... who would of thought.
Last edited by a moderator:
See, that doesn't make any sense.
I get how it happens, and why, but if it IS pending before the CG starts, why does the CG go ahead?
That's kinda like the Red Cross organising a fund-raiser after a Tsunami and then going ahead with it even when they know another Tsunami is on it's way and the event is going to be flooded.
If lockdowns are triggered due to people being arseholes during the CG, I guess I can live with that.
It's a bit dumb if they can do stuff in Solo or PG mode and nobody can prevent it but, c'est la vie.
If, OTOH, the lockdown IS pending before the CG starts then the CG simply shouldn't start.
Last edited:
You're confusing influence gain with state buckets. The two are unrelated in that state buckets have nothing to do influence caps and such.
There's no 100% knowledge on exactly how the state buckets work, but they work roughly like this:
- Activities contribute to different "buckets" for that faction. e.g killing security fills the "lockdown" bucket, trading for profit fills the "boom" bucket, black market trading fills the "bust" bucket etc.
- When a bucket is "filled", the state goes "pending" and (empties all buckets, or empties that state bucket? I forget which).
- Each state that goes "active" has a minimum period and maximum period it can go for. Minimum is usually around 3 days, maximum can be weeks, it depends on a lot of things.
- This is where my understanding gets grey... but some activities prolong a state (but not beyond it's maximum duration), others shorten it. Profit trading sustains a Boom state, for example
- Left idle, a state "drains out", or is overwritten by another pending state with higher precedence (iirc precedences are: Highest - War, Civil War, Election; Middle - Expansion, retreat; Low - Everything else).
- Presumably, killing security results in more lockdown, but handing in bounties results in less lockdown. *However* there is no "cap" as far as anyone knows on filling (or draining) state buckets, only on influence changes.
So, no, as far as I know as long as thousands of people continue handing in bounties a handful of commanders won't be able to sustain the lockdown. The reason the lockdown is still in effect is because it hasn't gone past the minimum period for it running so far (which is usually about 3 days for most states). It'll undoubtedly be in a "Boom" state in 4 or 5 hours, since that's what's pending, and if not tomorrow (because I got my dates wrong) then 24h after that.
I doubt anyone knew this CG was actually coming.
Presumably somebody either initiated it manually OR the game randomly selects CGs from a pre-defined database.
In either case, if a lockdown is pending before the CG starts then the CG shouldn't go ahead.
We're supposed to assume that the "people" running these stations are so desperate for materials that they are willing to pay over the odds for them.
They then decide to put the station in lockdown due to high crime rates in the system.
And yet they also decide to go ahead with the operation to gather materials, in the full knowledge that nobody can deliver them.
It. Makes No. Sense.
Seems like a better system would involve running the BHing CG first and then use the outcome of that to decide whether the trade CG goes ahead the following week.
It makes more sense and it'd create a formal opportunity for opposing factions to decide what happens.
No reason really... for some reason people think I left the game?
Repping for breaking forum rules... who would of thought.
Hmmm, think you may be on thin ice there Harry, people in glass houses etc etc.
Every CG has a warning about the possibility of lockdown occuring.
Also, if it was intentional, the only reason is to stop others from turning in whatever it is the CG needs.
Some do it for RP reasons, some for the pure joy of knowing they have ruined someone else's plans. This is a planet of vicious little dogs, after all.
Also, if it was intentional, the only reason is to stop others from turning in whatever it is the CG needs.
Some do it for RP reasons, some for the pure joy of knowing they have ruined someone else's plans. This is a planet of vicious little dogs, after all.
That's fair enough.
If people are intent on causing the CG to fail, for whatever reasons, that's not a problem.
What IS a problem is the idea that the lockdown was pending prior to the CG starting.
It's bonkers that a CG should start with a lockdown pending.
And then there's the rather convoluted logic people use.
"Bloody lockdown during a CG"
"That'll be somebody trying to force it to fail"
"Not necessarily. It could have been pending before the CG started"
If a sensible system was implemented, where a CG would NEVER start while a lockdown was pending, then at least people would know, for sure, that the CG was being deliberately undermined.
And, to be clear, I don't have anything against people trying to sabotage CGs. That's part of the game.
Starting a CG with a lockdown already pending is just lousy programming and/or administration.
Sorry to burst your bubble. It's not lousy programming and/or administration. It's called the BGS.
More like lousy game playing.
the irony is that some disgruntled pvpers claim exactly the same. cuts both ways. c'est la vie!
(i don't claim for either side, just still amazed at some design decisions. once you get past it it is even funny to watch, please let the drama continue!
)The BGS doesn't explain why a CG would start with a lockdown imminent.
"Hey, let's start a huge campaign for resources to expand our presence in this system"
"Erm, boss, we're going into lockdown tomorrow due to the recent crime spree"
"Never mind that! The campaign goes ahead anyway!"
"But, nobody'll be able to deliver the stuff we want and we won't be able to build our shiny new space-station"
"I'm sure it'll be fine"
The only thing that explains it is lousy implementation, either via programming or manual administration.
Influence gains are capped through positive actions; state buckets are not - at the end of the tick, it's about how the number of actions stack up against each other.
If the lockdown was pending PRIOR to the CG starting it's nothing to do with game playing.
The game, or the human responsible, has initiated the CG under circumstances where it isn't going to work in a sensible manner.
If people want to sabotage a CG after it's started, I'm totally cool with that.
I'm just saying that starting a CG with a lockdown pending is halfassed programming because it wouldn't make any sense to start the CG in those circumstances.
More probably the case that players took action once the CG was announced.
Trolls will be trolls.
Not everyone's complaining, I think it's awesome that the system is in lockdown and a nice twist.
All those traders turning up at the station only to realise it's locked down, dumping their cargo and getting into combat ships to joing the bounty hunting CG and help end the lockdown state.. genuine emergent gamepley.
All those traders turning up at the station only to realise it's locked down, dumping their cargo and getting into combat ships to joing the bounty hunting CG and help end the lockdown state.. genuine emergent gamepley.
Last edited by a moderator: