Hostile from fighting in CZ - no missions taken

Mangal Oemie

Mangal Oemie
Ah yes, the Fed Bug :D -- probably the biggest cause of AEDC rebuys the last couple of years. We have one CMDR who is at over 100 such incidents (not all ended in ship destruction :D )

A quick way to repair rep is to get in an explo ship and map a bunch of ELWs and Ammonia worlds. Did about 8 or so of those, and that brought my rep up from unfriendly to allied with our opponent, allowing me to continue the war.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
I hate to be cynical, but calling it now:

Phase 3 of the new Interstellar Initiatives will be won by the host faction unless this issue is addressed.

Conflict Zone CGs are won by bonds submitted at the hosting station. If the hosting station is owned by a faction involved in the conflict, then players locked out by becoming hostile for supporting the opposing faction will be unable to hand in bonds and contribute to winning the CG for that faction.

FD have no choice but to fix this issue. I have pre-emptively reported the bug here: https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/1842
 
Last edited:

Deareim

Deareim
I don't understand the issue here. It is normal that fighting against a faction is reducing your rep. And you don't need to redeem bonds anymore, just CZ completion.

What is the issue here ? Sorry, but I skipped the last pages.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
Deareim said:
I don't understand the issue here. It is normal that fighting against a faction is reducing your rep. And you don't need to redeem bonds anymore, just CZ completion.

What is the issue here ? Sorry, but I skipped the last pages.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can still help win wars by means other than handing in bonds, but handing in bonds still counts. tl;dr It shouldn't.

Let me ask: Which faction should win?

The faction who has a high-intensity CZ cleared for them? Or the faction who has a high intensity CZ cleared for them, and pays 1m to some rando pilot for the work?

It should be a draw... because whether or not a faction has to pay out credits to anyone should have zero impact on the outcome of the war. Arguably, the faction who pays out should actually lose, as they're more out of pocket, all other things being fair.

Specifically, for Phase 3 of the Interstellar Initative, by all accounts it's going to be your bog-average conflict CZ. These are won by whoever hands in the most bonds. If it's hosted in a station owned by one of the factions involved in the war, anyone supporting the opposing side will eventually be locked out of the station, and prevented from participating further, due to becoming hostile.

It's a game-breaker. Frankly, it doesn't matter if there's other methods you can do. The act of handing in bonds should not affect the outcome of a war, in terms of the BGS. It should depend purely on running missions, clearing CZs and finishing scenarios at USS.

And for the fourth time... nobody thinks you shouldn't become hostile for attacking a faction. But becoming hostile actively restricts your ability to undertake further hostilities. This is what's broken, and has been ever since FD made hostile-station-lockouts a thing.

Tangentially: The reality is FD have neglected antagonistic/aggressive/hostile gameplay for too long. This is easily proven with the current state of the galaxy, reflecting more of an Elite: Best Friends universe with the prevalence of Boom/Investment and Civil Liberty, and the near-complete absence of negative states. The actual thing FD needs to do is invest in game mechanics which offer balanced rewards and equally incentivise pushing one faction into Investment and Civil Liberty, while crushing another into Famine and Lockdown. Somewhat cynically, this is never going to happen... but this particular issue is, like it or not, now a gamebreaker, and a product of that neglect. The easiest and most realistic fix right now is just removing the effect of combat bonds. Less-powerful commanders can still very easily contribute in low-intensity CZs, scenarios and missions, and combat bonds should nothing more than "a nice cash bonus".
 
Last edited:

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
[Elite: Best Friends]

Very true. ED needs to get its baseball bat out and hammer in a few nails- its got to say something when there are so few systems that are properly messed up.

Logically speaking bonds should not affect the outcome now: CZs have an overall win / lose condition, making individual kills redundant. This logically decouples the BGS effect of bonds and CZ massacre missions as their role is to tempt you to fight to win that battle. In fact all wars should be decided in CZs, with no support missions as there are now way too many inconsistencies to take care of. My peeve is the CZ influence value of kills: a Corvette is worth the same as a lowly Eagle- there should be weight to a bigger kill.
 

Troopi

Troopi
This would easily be resolved if interstellar factors started correctly assigning bonds and mission rewards to respective factions (they get a fee for it, don't they?)
 

FrogsFriend

FrogsFriend
Troopi said:
This would easily be resolved if interstellar factors started correctly assigning bonds and mission rewards to respective factions (they get a fee for it, don't they?)
Click to expand...

That could work. Earned Bonds are already split into different Factions, so adding an identifier for the system too may be an option.

But probably simpler to just stop Bonds counting towards the day's conflict score, if that's the way they want to go. Though I'd still like to see war-missions and USS scenarios counting as an alternative to fighting in CZs.
 

Troopi

Troopi
Using the Interstellar factors would allow you to deliver bonds and keep mining a faction's influence on a system, despite being hostile to it and unable to land in any station inside it.
Hell, you could even get hunted by that faction (ships sent after you), to increase the immersion.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
Troopi said:
Using the Interstellar factors would allow you to deliver bonds and keep mining a faction's influence on a system, despite being hostile to it and unable to land in any station inside it.
Click to expand...

Just because bonds are issued and stacked per-faction and not per conflict, I can't help but wonder if tracking the origin of the war/system bonds were earned would require an unreasonable amount of database work to change.

I get the sentiment, but I still maintain; the impact of the ships I destroy in a war should not be determined by whether I get paid for it or not.

Murderhoboing system authorities hurts the influence and security state of a faction, but there's no need to get paid for it to have that impact. Destroying ships in a war should be the same (i.e the kill is what counts to winning the war)
 

Rubbernuke

Rubbernuke
In my fantasy ED that haunts me each day, I'd like wars to be fought like this:

Regular matched wars: each side has a Checkpoint SS generated, and using the old/ very rare these days T-9 trader USS drop off bonds there. It would be a cool staging post that could build some atmosphere. Each day CZs are generated between these two points, and depending on if you are winning or losing they get closer or further way from your 'base'. You lose when the CZ engulfs your base (where the last days war takes place).

Coup: acts like retreat but in reverse- you get to 60% + and have to keep that level to win. If your enemy can lower your inf below 60% your coup fails.
 

Troopi

Troopi
Jmanis said:
Murderhoboing system authorities hurts the influence and security state of a faction, but there's no need to get paid for it to have that impact. Destroying ships in a war should be the same (i.e the kill is what counts to winning the war)
Click to expand...
Agree. The reputation and influence effect in a CZ should be resolved with each kill, or after a winning wave, and only the money side delivered afterwards in combat bonds.
 

Deareim

Deareim
I agree that bonds should not count anymore with the new way of working of CZ.
Even if, loss rep is not an issue as your actions in general should have consequences so you feel it as meaningful. As you should not have money for it unless you have a mission.
Bear in mind bonds can be redeem in other systems (aside IF)...

Anyway, CZ completion is more rewarding than bonds now. And i personally like the loss rep even if it is half baked implementation (you should not have bonds $
 

evaldo10

evaldo10
Bonds Have little impact in winning wars now.

We have tested by doing just Czs no bonds and Czs handing in bonds.

There was 0 difference.

Bonds are handier to keep and put in other systems for influence
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
evaldo10 said:
Bonds Have little impact in winning wars now.

We have tested by doing just Czs no bonds and Czs handing in bonds.

There was 0 difference.

Bonds are handier to keep and put in other systems for influence
Click to expand...
Given only handing in bonds does make a difference in winning or losing, I'm not completely convinced on that statement. I'd like to know more about the tests and data you collected for that one.

Unless your data guarantees bonds make absolutely zero difference, not little difference, it's not an acceptable situation. The answer to that lies in who wins out of:
  • A faction that has a single low CZ run for it; versus
  • A faction that has a single low CZ run for it, and has bonds handed in.
If the outcome isn't a draw, then the issue still needs to be fixed. Plus, zero impact still won't address the issue of player-lockout during the upcoming Conflict CZ, where bonds are literally the only thing which will matter, unless FD do a serious U-turn.

tl;dr if it's virtually no impact, make it absolutely no impact. Why half-bake it?

On a somewhat related note... this is where FD really need to explain exactly what counts and for how much.
 
Last edited:

Sapyx

Sapyx
I have to say, I'm on the side of "good, it's immersive". You should quickly become hated by a faction that you're actively fighting against in war zones. But I do agree, there has to be some kind of mitigation, particularly in a "entire star system is now hostile to me" scenario.

The "logical fix" to it would be to temporarily add one new dockable megaship per faction that is at war. Let's call them "flagships", because calling them anything else might make them confused with the hopefully-still-to-come squadron carriers, which should also form a second friendly base of operations in-system once they are implemented. Flagships should have basic refuel/rearm/repair facilities and offer missions to support the war effort for the owning faction, including making an "attack run" on the enemy flagship. Once the war is over, the flagships disappear again.
 

CMDR Arica

CMDR Arica
Sapyx said:
I have to say, I'm on the side of "good, it's immersive". You should quickly become hated by a faction that you're actively fighting against in war zones.
Click to expand...

To be fair I haven't met anyone on the other side of the argument, I think most people agree it's a good direction and immersion is important to a lot of people. But not at the cost of basic balance. I think a flagship would be more fun, but removing combat bonds from the war equation is more likely.
 

[VR] Darius_Six

[VR] Darius_Six
Well, this change certainly caused an interesting problem for me. I was fighting in a war for the control of a system, against the controlling faction. Docked at a station, picked up a massacre mission, headed out to the CZs to kill ships, got the mission done but now I'm hostile towards the faction owning the station I took the mission from and can't dock, since the station opens up on me on approach.
So I guess I now have to work FOR the controlling faction in one of the neighboring systems they're present so I can dock and complete a mission AGAINST them.
This change really makes fighting wars become fighting wars with extra steps. :D
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Jane Turner
Of course, the threshold values to count as a full transaction for bonds all need retesting - in Beta an eagle on one side was enough. We got as far as working out that it's somewhere close to 100K early in 3,3 - but may well have changed again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom