Medicine worse than the disease?

[Mangal Oemie]

While I think we all appreciate a bit of stability after the initial chaos of the 2 months after 3.3 was released, and the latest patch certainly did that, it also seriously slowed down faction work.

Part of that patch was the early ending to conflicts, which I am happy to say seems to work as advertised. Conflicts will end when one side can no longer lose it, and on next tick it immediately moves to None and transfers any assets. This is great. Moreover, I've only seen one empty CZ since the patch, and where conflicts went the wrong way, we suspect opposition/traffic, rather than it just going the wrong way, as it did initially.

However, part of the patch as well was to lower the influence of each activity. The same influence gains require something like 5x-10x more effort than before, which is bad enough in low traffic areas, in high traffic areas that is... discouraging.

Mission effects are way down.... while at the same time we no longer can board flip. So, even if I would like to do 20 missions or more, it basically ends up with 3 salvage missions and a cargo delivery.... if I am lucky.

It's discouraging to work for your faction and not see your efforts rewarded. But it is not much better to work daily for a couple of 10ths of a percent improvement, making a run on a system's ruler a multi-week slog, when in comparison armed conflicts are won sometimes with remarkable little effort.

At the moment, an armed conflict is a quicker path to influence growth by locking inf, winning 4 days in a row and get a free 4%. Meanwhile, getting that war organized now can require a completely insane effort over multiple weeks.

Is it perhaps time to bump influence effects up a bit again? Are people still seeing a lot of basic mechanic problems?

And please make explo data work again, as well as mining and trade. At the moment it seems missions and combat zones is most effective. Trade works under certain conditions but remains disappointing for effort involved, and missions are rare and if you're unlucky, stuck on pirate kills and salvage missions... Meanwhile some systems are self-growing themselves to expansion, making which system to expand hard to control.

I like the new mechanics. The ways armed conflicts work is great. But now I'd really like to make some progress...

Can we get the influence effects bumped up again? Is the BGS now stable enough to do that?

Love to hear your thoughts.

 

[Jmanis]

It is definitely harder for a single player to generate big influence swings, especially for smaller systems now. But I don't see this as being particularly problematic. I'm still experimenting with +ve/-ve influence boost combinations.

I can't say I agree with the statement about missions. I have no problems racking up =~ a dozen missions in short order. I usually have a combination of 3-4 source/delivery missions, and a half-dozen surface scan/assassination missions. If I have any problems getting missions, waiting for the next 10m cycle gets me what I need usually.

There *is* still a problem with mission board blobbiness and explotability. For example:
- Well. I could probably sum this up best with a meme.... but when a faction offers a particular type of mission, it's just that and not much else. Wartime Massacre Missions are still broken AF because FD never undid the original, incorrect "fix" of "guaranteeing they spawn", but if a faction is offering a donation mission, they're almost always offering about a dozen donation missions. Same for Salvage and a couple other types.
- There's still broken edge-cases with mission generation. I still have my one system where there's in excess of 25 systems all within 20LY of this target system, yet vanilla Assassination missions (e.g assassinate pirate lord) are *always* to the same system, for the same target faction, meanwhile any "scan surface target first" assassinations are always to the same facility (meanwhile, the subsequent target will be anywhere within 20Ly of there like what should normally happen). I've evidence from various reddit posts that people see this as "A good rank farming system" rather than a bug.

... but these conditions have existed since day dot.

Like I said in a post elsewhere, the benefits of planning my groups early expansions around exploiting substantial trade routes way back when multiple simultaneous states were still possible (before it was revised to single states) are paying off in droves these days, and the stability of our systems is much more assured, especially while we're now topping 20 systems. It makes the background sim feel much more, well, "background" to me, as I'm now focusing our groups efforts around gradual change, and actually having some fun with the varied state mechanics along the way. In addition... the benefit of the new conflict system and it not affecting other systems is significant.

If I had to choose between:
- being able to influence a single faction by over 15% in a single day, and having my faction's influence locked-down galaxy wide because of a single war; or
- being able to have all systems where my faction is present be influenced by not much more than 3-4% a day, despite being in a conflict elsewhere.

...I'll take the latter.

I think to summarise the BGS now, it's slower-paced and much more varied, and I like that.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

yeah, mission generation is bizarre. Just today I opened a mission board with 2 source&return missions and the rest assassination. I was in a Python, so called in a Chief, then ran the s&r missions while that was transferred.

I get back to the source station, and now I looked at 7 donation missions, and no assassinations

Other times, it's a board full of salvage missions, and since the number of Threat 2 & 4 has increased, I now do those in a Cutter.

Bring back board flipping, if we can't get more missions and/or more balanced mission boards, then. It's annoying to call in ships which then are useless on the next 10m board tick.

Wrt your choice, though, i would largely agree. I think a working 3.3 is a triumph. But I wouldn't call it varied, if I just end up struggling through mission boards. I enjoy CZs, but missions I do for result, not for fun. So I'd prefer a bit better result from that, to make it feel I made a contribution when I fffn get through a bunch of sucky salvage missions under fire...

 

[CrazyDiamond]

I'm seeing a single person influence of max or around 5% since the last patch, and while I don't mind varied missions I agree it can now feel like a slog to make up a 50%+ gap to a controlling faction after expansion.

I'd prefer the max gain to be upped a little, maybe to 10% a tick.

All in all, I'm liking 3.3. Initial bug-fest notwithstanding.

 

[Starwolfe]

As usual, my oddball of an anomaly isn't suffering too much from all this.

Sure its slowing changes, but slower isn't particularly worse.

The only issue I have is the higher-population systems are harder to influence without devoting significant time into it. But that is... okay maybe?

I am torn, as my area tends to be nearly no traffic its remarkably easy to work most of my systems regardless.

 

[Jmanis]

Bring back board flipping, if we can't get more missions and/or more balanced mission boards, then. It's annoying to call in ships which then are useless on the next 10m board tick.

I still think this is the best resolution to board flipping: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/456902-Overhaul-of-Mission-Board-UI-and-Mission-Lists

Wrt your choice, though, i would largely agree. I think a working 3.3 is a triumph. But I wouldn't call it varied, if I just end up struggling through mission boards. I enjoy CZs, but missions I do for result, not for fun. So I'd prefer a bit better result from that, to make it feel I made a contribution when I fffn get through a bunch of sucky salvage missions under fire...

I think we mean different things by "varied" here, though can agree with your point. By variety I'm referring more to availability of different states across the one faction, and this is why I'm always advocating for this sort of thing: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/472325-Time-to-buff-antagonistic-PvE

At the moment, my faction is in Boom across a half dozen systems, Civil Liberty in another half dozen, Pirate Attack in one system and War in another. Unfortunately Pirate Attack is still broken AF as far as I'm concerned, which is a shame. But at peak I had two outbreaks, two pirate attacks, a couple wars and an election, between various states of Boom, Investment and CL. This has been great, and provided a lot of cool, varied effects I can exploit across my whole empire... whereas the old Outbreak state would be Outbreak across the whole faction... so I couldn't go source medicines from my HT holdings to cure the Outbreak in another system. Likewise, if a war was on, there was nothing I could really sensibly do except fight the war, unless it was a useless one, in which case I'd just take three or four days off.

For a faction situated across 20 systems... I'd much rather see things being how it currently is, but throw in a system or two in civil unrest, famine etc. as well. The BGS balancing simply doesn't tend towards those states without dedicated effort... while Boom/Investment/Civil Liberty just happens as a matter of course without much undue effort.

 

[Rubbernuke]

By far the biggest annoyance for me is that its far too easy to get a good result (civil liberty etc) and not a bad one (lockdown). I'd also like to see the faction avatars actually mention what bucket is getting kicked a bit more explicitly ("our security is under attack", "we have a smuggling problem" for example).

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

While Pirate Attack has spawned instances in systems I've visited, the contents seem as if they might be bugged- a constant supply of high-value pirate lords, none in wings or responsive to attacks on the others, swarming like fish in a pond waiting to be killed. This cannot be as intended?

 

[Jmanis]

Even though I'm new to this stuff I just managed to trigger a civil war in a quiet system with 1.7 mio population in about a week. No assistance, no opposition, a pure solo effort. The supported MF was at 5.5% at start, the controlling faction that I'm trying to attack was at 63% at this time. I did nothing but missions for the supported faction, including lots of donations, assassinations and all kind of other missions from Inf++ onwards. I didn't touch the controlling faction which went almost synchronously down as the supported faction went up. Both are now at 35.1% inf. There are 7 MFs in this system.

@Jmanis
What does ve mean? As in "+ve/-ve influence boost combinations".

Positive and Negative. Just a shorthand to potentially distinguish someone reading +/- as "Plus/Minus". Additionally, it also distinguishes the term + from it's use in Inf/Rep rewards for missions, i.e if I wrote +, I could mean positive, or I could mean + in the context of +, ++, +++ etc..

 

[GargoyleBG]

worst missions are created at Tourism stations, where 90% are to Colonia and beyond, and there's no fix for those!

 

[Mangal Oemie]

ugh... another tick of a lot of effort going nowhere, and even the wrong way in some places.... smh

I am getting tired of this... Give me missions, or give me mission effects. Working systems with 7-8 missions available of which most don't match my current ship (and as stated above, switching ships just flips the situation, and you will get a new set of mission that don't match your ship) is getting real old.

A list of donation missions is a good day., so you can actually get some done. The more common experience is that you're running 3-4 missions at the time. The combination of next to no missions with low mission effects is stretching my will to play to the limits.

 

[Jane Turner]

I've not noticed the mission situation recently since missions are just about the worst effect for effort way to gain influence. Unless its a donation mission I don't bother

 

[CrazyDiamond]

I am getting tired of this... Give me missions, or give me mission effects. Working systems with 7-8 missions available of which most don't match my current ship (and as stated above, switching ships just flips the situation, and you will get a new set of mission that don't match your ship) is getting real old.

Not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs or anything, but in those situations I take the missions and then switch ship. You normally get 24 hours for most missions and the only ones it doesn't work with are donation missions as they don't use a depot.

Have you tried that?

 

[Jmanis]

I've not noticed the mission situation recently since missions are just about the worst effect for effort way to gain influence. Unless its a donation mission I don't bother

Currently working a sleepy 10k pop system... faction started at 8%. I ran about 12 missions, variety of scan, assassination, source and donation. Gained about 4%. By contrast i ran 3 assassination missions and got a comparable change of around 3%.

My gut is telling me the raw effects of actions are still the same as always, but the diminishing returns kick in much sooner.

 

[Jmanis]

Not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs or anything, but in those situations I take the missions and then switch ship. You normally get 24 hours for most missions and the only ones it doesn't work with are donation missions as they don't use a depot.

Have you tried that?

Non- wing mining missions, hijack and salvage missions likewise don't use the depot. Wish they'd fix it and make all missions use the depot already :/

 

[Mangal Oemie]

I think I am just a little frustrated. I didn't really want to do assassinations. So, the switch was actually welcome, just left me with a ship somewhere it didn't need to be.

But ultimately the real problem is that outside of armed conflicts I don't feel my efforts are worth the pay-off, and that's testing my patience with the BGS right now. We were all a bit louder about problems with the BGS when it was clearly and obviously broken. I am grumbling a bit that it's still not fixed, and certainly not balanced to my liking.

 

[Johnny Cyclops]

Missions and counterparties.

1. The counterparty to a mission isn't always stated. I did two salvage illegal black boxes to the same system and when I got 'home' and cashed them in, they did negative inf to two different counterparties, one of which I'd preferred to have supported than to undermine. SUGGESTION - always name the counterparty.

2. The same counterparty.

a. I've been doing more of the ground installation scan missions (e.g. "interact with comms beacon") which invariably are illegal, but can be done from the ship (95% of the time), in a Python, for instance. However, I keep getting the same system and same installation and thus the same minor faction, that I'm now hostile with. Little variety. BUT, I do now know the exact approach bearings, height, speed, to put the nose of the Python directly on a beacon, scan it, and boost out with very little shield damage.

b. Courier missions to a system are 95% likely to be a delivery to the same MF over and over. Where it's not my preferred faction, this then causes me to not accept the mission, even though it would support the mission giver MF (which is my main goal).

SUGGESTION - some counterparty variety would be nice.

 

[FrogsFriend]

Missions and counterparties.

1. The counterparty to a mission isn't always stated. I did two salvage illegal black boxes to the same system and when I got 'home' and cashed them in, they did negative inf to two different counterparties, one of which I'd preferred to have supported than to undermine. SUGGESTION - always name the counterparty.

2. The same counterparty.

a. I've been doing more of the ground installation scan missions (e.g. "interact with comms beacon") which invariably are illegal, but can be done from the ship (95% of the time), in a Python, for instance. However, I keep getting the same system and same installation and thus the same minor faction, that I'm now hostile with. Little variety. BUT, I do now know the exact approach bearings, height, speed, to put the nose of the Python directly on a beacon, scan it, and boost out with very little shield damage.

b. Courier missions to a system are 95% likely to be a delivery to the same MF over and over. Where it's not my preferred faction, this then causes me to not accept the mission, even though it would support the mission giver MF (which is my main goal).

SUGGESTION - some counterparty variety would be nice.

I'd agree that a better spread of target factions would be good. But interestingly I've noticed that if there are multiple missions on the board from one faction to a single system, the target stations are almost always different for each mission now (not counting the scan missions).

 

[Jmanis]

<snip>

I'd agree that a better spread of target factions would be good. But interestingly I've noticed that if there are multiple missions on the board from one faction to a single system, the target stations are almost always different for each mission now (not counting the scan missions).

This, once again, comes down to inherent problems around the procedural generation of missions being "blobby". There is *massive* evidence supporting this.

- Certain systems generating assassination missions which target *only one* system despite there being multiple candidate systems.
- The tendency for the BGS to generate homogenous mission types i.e only donation missions, or only salvage missions, or only delivery missions, regardless of state.
- The tendency for surface missions to only target a subset of surface installations, where a surface installation is the target.
- The tendency for missions to, when targeting a faction, target only a single faction across all generated missions, regardless of state[1].

I get the game relies on procedural content, rather than totally random... but in this case where the procedural generator creates "blobbiness" it's surely broken.

[1] Famine and Outbreak are exceptions here... a neighbouring agriculture economy will almost always generate food transport missions to the afflicted faction, and this is fine.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I get the game relies on procedural content, rather than totally random... but in this case where the procedural generator creates "blobbiness" it's surely broken.

That probably depends on what you see the mission generator as being for - if every system generated an equally flat mix of missions, that wouldn't be very interesting.

But it would be better if the mission types were actually tied to state, economy and government/ethos properly (which would need a lot more of them, of course)