TL;DR: Missions are a waste of time and that's bad.
But here's some nuance.
In March, Frontier finally got around to fixing some of the major issues introduced with 3.3. And while they still have not implemented everything that 3.3 was supposed to bring to the table in terms of the BGS, we know now that they have considerable nerfed the impact that some actions have on influence. This has been discussed in a few threads, but I wanted to start a separate conversation specifically on the current balance of actions available to commanders moving factions up or down. I'm going to be a little wishy-washy with my analysis since I'm writing this at work, but here we go:
The Cap
We strongly feel that all evidence indicates that the maximum possible influence change in a system has not changed. The cap has not been reduced. However, the work required to reach it has increased considerably. In practice, this means that commanders working for a faction are not going to hit a point where further work is wasted nearly as quickly. Said differently, it means that the work required to achieve the best possible result has gone up. Which side you fall on here likely depends on your available manpower.
Missions
The impact missions have on influence has been significantly reduced. The value of a mission is still variable (++, +++, +++++), but lower across the board. We've heard suggestions that they are now worth between a tenth and a quarter of what they were in February. We lean toward a quarter in our tracking.
Trade
Because of the way the game defines transactions, trade on its own is more labor-intensive than running missions or even bounty-hunting for a non-controlling faction. However, high value trades that earn at least 1000 credits of profit may be the most valuable transactions available to commanders. Aiming specifically for these transactions requires a solid market and research and, in our experience, still may not result in the kind of influence gains we would have expected prior to March.
Bounties
We have not done solid testing on whether or not their is a minimum value bounties need to meet in order to count as a transaction. With that said, experience since March suggests that moving bounties is an effective way of moving influence — if the target faction is generating bounties in the system. In high security systems, or systems that do not have a RES, bounties for non-controlling factions can be rare. But a controlling faction with a nav beacon or RES close to a station can be bolstered very quickly if necessary.
Data
We've yet to see any conclusive evidence that data has any real value for moving influence.
Murder
This is still a valuable tool. Our experience suggests that murder is most effective as a way to control how influence is redistributed across a system when missions, trades, and bounties are completed on behalf of other factions.
But how do you feel, Miso?
It's so nice that you care about my opinion! Many of the changes introduced by 3.3 were geared toward added a level of realism (believability?) to our manipulation of the game's governments. Simultaneous states, new conflict zones, etc. In my view, the action rebalance promotes more "organic play." The increased comparative value of trade and bounties means that commanders are induced to base out of stations owned by the factions they're supporting. Commanders are rewarded when they seek out profitable trades to bring home with them, buying commodities every time they dock. And once-annoying interdictions by pirate NPCs become a valuable opportunity to earn bounties that can be dropped to support the target faction.
But to some extent, this organic play is superficial. Despite Frontier's efforts to obfuscate mechanics, players are going to find the most efficient ways to work — and that may mean avoiding missions and instead setting up complex trade routes where goods are shifted from one target faction to another. In other cases, it may mean that we are back to cycling bounties just as we used to during wars (single bond turn-ins). The diversity of missions becomes meaningless when missions are so weak, and peaceful commanders are left with less to do.
The value of bounties in particular means that combat pilots are weighted very heavily right now. Because finding bounties for a controlling faction is far easier than bounties for secondary factions, controlling factions are in a strong defensive position. Controlling factions that have resource extraction sites and ambient traffic or high numbers of players willing to bounty hunt efficiently will be hard to touch. The value of trade means that markets are strategically critical, so factions that control none are going to be at a significant disadvantage. Taking that first asset in a system is everything — and you had better hope it is in an election, because the reputation impact of fighting in a war is going to devastating to groups on the offense, even against NPC factions.
I don't miss data, but I don't feel this rebalance was necessary and I absolutely feel it needs to be adjusted again. I suspect Frontier will do this by nerfing bounties and trades, putting all actions on roughly the same playing-field while leaving all groups with a higher work requirement to achieve their objectives. But I would rather we go back to where we were before, as I do feel there's a very real level of attrition in the BGS community that is not healthy for a game that will have no major content updates for a year and a half.
But here's some nuance.
In March, Frontier finally got around to fixing some of the major issues introduced with 3.3. And while they still have not implemented everything that 3.3 was supposed to bring to the table in terms of the BGS, we know now that they have considerable nerfed the impact that some actions have on influence. This has been discussed in a few threads, but I wanted to start a separate conversation specifically on the current balance of actions available to commanders moving factions up or down. I'm going to be a little wishy-washy with my analysis since I'm writing this at work, but here we go:
The Cap
We strongly feel that all evidence indicates that the maximum possible influence change in a system has not changed. The cap has not been reduced. However, the work required to reach it has increased considerably. In practice, this means that commanders working for a faction are not going to hit a point where further work is wasted nearly as quickly. Said differently, it means that the work required to achieve the best possible result has gone up. Which side you fall on here likely depends on your available manpower.
Missions
The impact missions have on influence has been significantly reduced. The value of a mission is still variable (++, +++, +++++), but lower across the board. We've heard suggestions that they are now worth between a tenth and a quarter of what they were in February. We lean toward a quarter in our tracking.
Trade
Because of the way the game defines transactions, trade on its own is more labor-intensive than running missions or even bounty-hunting for a non-controlling faction. However, high value trades that earn at least 1000 credits of profit may be the most valuable transactions available to commanders. Aiming specifically for these transactions requires a solid market and research and, in our experience, still may not result in the kind of influence gains we would have expected prior to March.
Bounties
We have not done solid testing on whether or not their is a minimum value bounties need to meet in order to count as a transaction. With that said, experience since March suggests that moving bounties is an effective way of moving influence — if the target faction is generating bounties in the system. In high security systems, or systems that do not have a RES, bounties for non-controlling factions can be rare. But a controlling faction with a nav beacon or RES close to a station can be bolstered very quickly if necessary.
Data
We've yet to see any conclusive evidence that data has any real value for moving influence.
Murder
This is still a valuable tool. Our experience suggests that murder is most effective as a way to control how influence is redistributed across a system when missions, trades, and bounties are completed on behalf of other factions.
But how do you feel, Miso?
It's so nice that you care about my opinion! Many of the changes introduced by 3.3 were geared toward added a level of realism (believability?) to our manipulation of the game's governments. Simultaneous states, new conflict zones, etc. In my view, the action rebalance promotes more "organic play." The increased comparative value of trade and bounties means that commanders are induced to base out of stations owned by the factions they're supporting. Commanders are rewarded when they seek out profitable trades to bring home with them, buying commodities every time they dock. And once-annoying interdictions by pirate NPCs become a valuable opportunity to earn bounties that can be dropped to support the target faction.
But to some extent, this organic play is superficial. Despite Frontier's efforts to obfuscate mechanics, players are going to find the most efficient ways to work — and that may mean avoiding missions and instead setting up complex trade routes where goods are shifted from one target faction to another. In other cases, it may mean that we are back to cycling bounties just as we used to during wars (single bond turn-ins). The diversity of missions becomes meaningless when missions are so weak, and peaceful commanders are left with less to do.
The value of bounties in particular means that combat pilots are weighted very heavily right now. Because finding bounties for a controlling faction is far easier than bounties for secondary factions, controlling factions are in a strong defensive position. Controlling factions that have resource extraction sites and ambient traffic or high numbers of players willing to bounty hunt efficiently will be hard to touch. The value of trade means that markets are strategically critical, so factions that control none are going to be at a significant disadvantage. Taking that first asset in a system is everything — and you had better hope it is in an election, because the reputation impact of fighting in a war is going to devastating to groups on the offense, even against NPC factions.
I don't miss data, but I don't feel this rebalance was necessary and I absolutely feel it needs to be adjusted again. I suspect Frontier will do this by nerfing bounties and trades, putting all actions on roughly the same playing-field while leaving all groups with a higher work requirement to achieve their objectives. But I would rather we go back to where we were before, as I do feel there's a very real level of attrition in the BGS community that is not healthy for a game that will have no major content updates for a year and a half.
