Day 64 of a broken background sim

[Ian Doncaster]

Oh and when do you (or anyone at Frontier) think i might want to start playing the most expensive game i've bought?

It's way less buggy than (even fully patched) FFE was, in terms of serious bugs you're likely to come across in routine play [1]. So I think the answer in your case is "the game will never live up to your expectations, go and do something else". Personally, I'd recommend you actually try playing it first before you give up on it for good, just on the off-chance that you like it anyway, though.

That's not to say that there aren't some serious issues now with the BGS - there is definitely a problem with how some actions are counted in certain unclear circumstances. But:
- there are fewer than there were on 3.3 release - there were some issues in December and early January which have now been sorted
- unless you're specifically trying to play the BGS as a strategic sub-game, you won't meaningfully be affected by any of them
- even then you might get lucky for quite a while

[1] To take a different example: there are currently 1366 Firefox bugs open just on its "tabbed browsing" feature, and 605 to do with the "address bar". I've used Firefox for years and never experienced any noticeable bugs to do with either. Chromium has 59601 total open bugs, so it's not just Firefox - all web browsers are completely bug-ridden and no-one should be wasting their time trying to browse the web until they shape up.

 

[Jmanis]

So, I really want to post about how, for the last 40 days, the BGS has been functioning entirely as expected in my neck of the woods (=~ 20 systems of low - medium traffic systems, 10-50 pilots per day, including one Powerplay control system).

My only concern is, based on recent experiences in the BGS subforum, and the opinions here, that it's become such an echo-chamber of "BGS is broken" and is so diametrically opposed to the idea of the BGS being less broken than being claimed that it's just not worth it (and it's why I'm not posting particularly much anymore on the BGS subforum)

So yeah, there it is. I'm not trying to say there's no bugs, it wouldn't be the BGS without it. But everything my group does (and doesn't, in the case of opposition) gets reflected as-expected for us, and has done for well over a month now. If you want to know more, feel free to ask.

I just mention this because I see post like Zak's above, and cringe hard when I see someone basing their entire assessment of the BGS off what I see as some pretty hyperbolic comments. Again, not discounting them entirely, but the echo-chamber has really ramped it up.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So, I really want to post about how, for the last 40 days, the BGS has been functioning entirely as expected in my neck of the woods (=~ 20 systems of low - medium traffic systems, 10-50 pilots per day, including one Powerplay control system).

My only concern is, based on recent experiences in the BGS subforum, and the opinions here, that it's become such an echo-chamber of "BGS is broken" and is so diametrically opposed to the idea of the BGS being less broken than being claimed that it's just not worth it (and it's why I'm not posting particularly much anymore on the BGS subforum)

So yeah, there it is. I'm not trying to say there's no bugs, it wouldn't be the BGS without it. But everything my group does (and doesn't, in the case of opposition) gets reflected as-expected for us, and has done for well over a month now. If you want to know more, feel free to ask.

I think though, in a black box system where we don't know very much having some bugs is as bad as having everything bugged.

 

[Moriarte]

Oh and when do you (or anyone at Frontier) think i might want to start playing the most expensive game i've bought?

Culture of entitlement so strong it deserves a statue. Perhaps in every major city.

Sir David, was it your intention to make a game as broken as this one, for as long as it has been? Speaking with the deepest respect and love for the Elite franchise as i have, and so knowing all the history involving outside publisher pressures resulting in previous buggy Elites etc.

Ofc it was his intention, what a silly question! You make a game 100 times more complex than FE2 (which did fit on one 3.5inch IIRC) you get 1000 times the amount of bugs.

 

[Aashenfox]

So, I really want to post about how, for the last 40 days, the BGS has been functioning entirely as expected in my neck of the woods (=~ 20 systems of low - medium traffic systems, 10-50 pilots per day, including one Powerplay control system).

My only concern is, based on recent experiences in the BGS subforum, and the opinions here, that it's become such an echo-chamber of "BGS is broken" and is so diametrically opposed to the idea of the BGS being less broken than being claimed that it's just not worth it (and it's why I'm not posting particularly much anymore on the BGS subforum)

So yeah, there it is. I'm not trying to say there's no bugs, it wouldn't be the BGS without it. But everything my group does (and doesn't, in the case of opposition) gets reflected as-expected for us, and has done for well over a month now. If you want to know more, feel free to ask.

I just mention this because I see post like Zak's above, and cringe hard when I see someone basing their entire assessment of the BGS off what I see as some pretty hyperbolic comments. Again, not discounting them entirely, but the echo-chamber has really ramped it up.

This is actually true and an important point. While we have no info on what trumps what in terms of war effort, we have been able to win all our wars the old fashioned way, lots and lots of transactions as well as a good number of clears.

The thing about war effort going to the wrong faction was largely solved in 3.3.0.2.

Don't get me wrong, I can still rattle you off a list of 10 messed up things, but fighting wars is working largely as expected the last two weeks.

 

[Schlack]

So, I really want to post about how, for the last 40 days, the BGS has been functioning entirely as expected in my neck of the woods (=~ 20 systems of low - medium traffic systems, 10-50 pilots per day, including one Powerplay control system).

My only concern is, based on recent experiences in the BGS subforum, and the opinions here, that it's become such an echo-chamber of "BGS is broken" and is so diametrically opposed to the idea of the BGS being less broken than being claimed that it's just not worth it (and it's why I'm not posting particularly much anymore on the BGS subforum)

So yeah, there it is. I'm not trying to say there's no bugs, it wouldn't be the BGS without it. But everything my group does (and doesn't, in the case of opposition) gets reflected as-expected for us, and has done for well over a month now. If you want to know more, feel free to ask.

I just mention this because I see post like Zak's above, and cringe hard when I see someone basing their entire assessment of the BGS off what I see as some pretty hyperbolic comments. Again, not discounting them entirely, but the echo-chamber has really ramped it up.

As far as we can tell only two of the major bugs have been fixed. 1. The conflict/state freeze over the Christmas period and 2. Mission target negative effects (they were giving positive effects). Fixes were put in place following community outcry.

The issue with the BGS now is primarily inconsistency. It works until it doesn't. And when it doesn't work your actions have the opposite effect to that intended. You lose influence, You lose conflicts. All your hard work counts against you. What works one day may not work the next day. The same amount of effort can give wildly different results in the same system and conditions. This is not working correctly.

If you believe its not a problem, go back through the bug forum and see how many have thrown their hands up in frustration and quit playing the BGS game just as FDEV introduced it as a main game feature tied in with squadrons. This should be a concern for anyone interested in the long term health of the game. You are correct in that the BGS can appear to function correctly much of the time, but it is essentially broken. Would you drive a car that sporadically and unexplainably went into reverse on a motorway? "Sure it works fine most of the time so I'm not worried".

This aint our first rodeo and we have been able to navigate through the bugs with workarounds, but it is a terribly frustrating experience even for us old hands. I am so sick of bounty hunting, for instance, which is the only reliable way of winning a bugged war/CW.

 

[Schlack]

The thing about war effort going to the wrong faction was largely solved in 3.3.0.2.

No, it wasnt. It is an intermittent bug which can strike mid conflict. You just have been lucky enough not to have been hit with it.

edit: one of the related bugs was fixed as per my previous post (massacre missions target effects)

 

[Schlack]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/477461-BGS-Traqnsfer-of-control-after-conflict

oopsie, heres another bug

I’ve been working with a minor faction Mutumu Future in the Rauras system and a few weeks ago instigated a control conflict (election) between the controlling faction Workers of Rauras Revolutionary Party and Mutumu Future who won this conflict. The attack and defend stations were Krupkat Orbital and Ricci City, but now the system and primary station, Krupkat Orbital, is still controlled by the “Workers” faction.

 

[Schlack]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/477434-War-went-from-Total-Victory-to-loss

and another one

Union of Awang Partnership had full control over the war, and on the last day it reported "Total Victory". -Then when the war was over, it was lost? Please fix...

 

[Schlack]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/477228-faction-won-war-lost-influence

LHS 1561 Natural Interstellar won the conflict over Movement for LHS 20 Liberals yet they lost influence. Liberals gained 8%, Natural Interstellar lost 4.8%. How is this possible?

hmm there seems to be a lot of problems for something that isn't broken.

It works until it doesnt.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I think though, in a black box system where we don't know very much having some bugs is as bad as having everything bugged.

Certainly it's very hard to tell the difference between "this doesn't work as expected because of a bug" and "this doesn't work as expected because of an intentional change so our expectations are wrong".

In terms of *aggregate* behaviour - without knowing exactly what transactions people are putting in - all but one of the systems near me is behaving about as I would expect, with a few exceptions:
- bulk exploration data drop-off still seems to have very weird influence effects
- expansion by invasion doesn't correctly force the retreat of the loser (and this is causing some knock-on instability)
- not a bug, but arguably a misdesign: the influence locking during conflict has caused one system to completely seize up and combined with the invasion bug is having undesirable effects in others

 

[Aashenfox]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/477228-faction-won-war-lost-influence



hmm there seems to be a lot of problems for something that isn't broken.

It works until it doesnt.

I didn't say it wasn't broken, please try to take my post at face value instead of interpreting what I'm saying. I said war effort is LARGELY solved, not completely. What was happening before that was MUCH worse. I Also question the testing methods and awareness of some of those bug reporters. Even we experienced players sometimes fall into the trap of not fully anticipating all the variables that could be in play.

Essentially, I am agreeing with Jmanis that it isn't quite as bad as some people suggest. I'm not saying it's fine, I'm not saying we shouldn't be complaining, just that some are complaining about bugs that have already been mostly solved which kinda muddies the water for the devs.

 

[Schlack]

Essentially, I am agreeing with Jmanis that it isn't quite as bad as some people suggest. I'm not saying it's fine, I'm not saying we shouldn't be complaining, just that some are complaining about bugs that have already been mostly solved which kinda muddies the water for the devs.

The entire point of this thread is that the bugs haven't been fixed and there has been little communication from FDEV on the matter.

Day 67.

 

[Factabulous]

The entire point of this thread is that the bugs haven't been fixed and there has been little communication from FDEV on the matter.

Day 67.

Maybe you could add some links into the OP?

At the moment it's a tad vague, and certainly everything isn't broken, so this thread is getting rather histrionic.

 

[Schlack]

I cant account for or control what others post, but this was my OP which is an accurate summary of the current state of affairs.

The BGS has been fundamentally broken since the launch of 3.3. Despite some fixes there are serious problems with consistency of results, effort going to enemies during conflicts, positive actions giving negative results. Actions that work one day and not the next in the same system and conflict.

 

[Aashenfox]

I'm surprised that nobody has really mentioned the biggest weirdness of all...

As soon as 3.3 dropped, most of the controlling factions of the core fed systems (and I imagine core, high pop, high traffic systems in Empire space and probably Alliance space too), went into expansion. The first question is why that happened of course. But things got stranger from there. Because despite there being a plethora of suitable expansion targets for most of those factions, the expansions never took place (NONE OF THEM) as far as I can tell, causing a state of Investment. In many of those systems that state of investment persists to this day. This is compounding the problems of manufactured materials gathering as well as getting boring. Some systems (I admit this is a guess) must be in investment for 7 weeks now. Big, core systems.

 

[Morbad]

Time to start over. Just wipe everyone's saves and roll the game clock back to 3300.

 

[Aashenfox]

Time to start over. Just wipe everyone's saves and roll the game clock back to 3300.

Hm...I like engineers...just get rid of special effects (all of them).

 

[Morbad]

Well, even in the extremely unlikely event that Frontier would care for a reset, I think it would have to come after a major balance pass.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I'm surprised that nobody has really mentioned the biggest weirdness of all...

As soon as 3.3 dropped, most of the controlling factions of the core fed systems (and I imagine core, high pop, high traffic systems in Empire space and probably Alliance space too), went into expansion. The first question is why that happened of course. But things got stranger from there. Because despite there being a plethora of suitable expansion targets for most of those factions, the expansions never took place (NONE OF THEM) as far as I can tell, causing a state of Investment. In many of those systems that state of investment persists to this day. This is compounding the problems of manufactured materials gathering as well as getting boring. Some systems (I admit this is a guess) must be in investment for 7 weeks now.

No-one's mentioned it much because it's not a bug, and while there is an underlying design issue it's minor compared to some of the other problems.

Investment is - as of 3.3, as documented by FDev - no longer linked to expansion at all. Instead, it's caused by positive economic activity. So few of those factions went into expansion in the first place, and those that did will have completed normally regardless of the presence or absence of investment. There is still a "fail to expand, expand further next time" effect, but it's no longer linked to the investment state. The expansions you're assuming existed were never there in the first place.

Investment, in its new role as a slider rather than a bucket state, can potentially last indefinitely. Negative economic activity is difficult to do and in any even slightly-trafficed system will be massively overwhelmed by background positive activity from non-aligned players just doing stuff. So systems tend to drift towards Investment, in general, unless extremely focused negative economic activity takes place. The negative economic states can be achieved, but generally aren't.

The underlying design issue is that as a result of this controlling factions tend to end up pushed at the top of the Investment bar and don't go anywhere else. That's not a bug, it's just that there are far more players doing positive actions than negative ones. But there perhaps needs to be more balancing around this so that it's easier to put negative effects on some factions.