Increased volatility in the BGS -runaway leaders many retreats
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Oook then, seatbelt fastened...
Somebody's knocked the BGS off the table and shook it up like a snowglobe... but it will pass 
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQVsBZY8G_I
https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/16652 this appears to be the error log where people are congregating to say "I also".
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
where there are positive inputs to multiple factions it seems that the new normalisation process, mentioned in the patch notes, is coping ok. Its where just one faction is moving things are going mental.
This is the process that takes the change calculated as a result any activity... adds or subtracts it from the starting influence, and then makes all the new influences add up to 100.
This is the process that takes the change calculated as a result any activity... adds or subtracts it from the starting influence, and then makes all the new influences add up to 100.
Ok.
I don't really get it, as I'm not a native speaker, but I will try to understand...
Is there another way to explain it?
Sorry...
That sounds like what I'm seeing here. I'm curious about how the negative inputs compare, though.
Presumably the mechanism which ensures that the influence percentages still add up to 100%. For instance, if four factions were all around 25% and then one shoots up to 35%, the total would now be 110%, so everything has to be scaled down.
As for what's happening, it could be related to this (from the patch notes):
Looks like they've started using a different algorithm that tends to keep factions moving in the same direction they were before, but with the usual "week zero" post-update effect. So the algorithm can't apply the past trend because there's no stored data for that.
It means that the influence movement keep some kind of inertia and a major effort will be required to counter this effect, right?
It would mean that it intentional and it will be easier to move influence, retire and expand MFs.
Consequently, it is harder also to keep a system stable and commander will need to make influence frequently in all systems.
It would mean that it intentional and it will be easier to move influence, retire and expand MFs.
Consequently, it is harder also to keep a system stable and commander will need to make influence frequently in all systems.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
So the normalised outcome no longer keeps the original ratios (when just a single faction moves)
EVERYBODY NUKE YOUR ENEMIES NOW
Isn't this a lot like the original 3.3 wars, where you got a bonus day if your side had built up momentum?
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
BTW I think the trend means keeps more of the up or more of the down for that tick, rather than something that operates over multiple ticks.... but we shall see.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
The fact that it seems ok when two factions move makes it more likely to me that its an unintended consequence of the equation used. The change appears to be framed as an attempt to make it easier to move factions that are already on very high influence - by definition much of the gain is lost in the normalisation process. I've not yet quite got my head around how FD could have changes the existing equations, but I'll not worry too hard until there is evidence that this is the new normal
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
A natural consequence of the previous arrangement is that it is impossible to get an expansion out of a faction in a very busy system. Maybe that is why the change has been made - with the consequence that quieter systems are now so highly geared, they will shortly all be in expansion. Its a nightmare if you are trying to control them
![[Cancelled Consoleer] boppa_](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/159/159397.jpg?1610496247){kind=avatar}
Being that this is Day 3 and no acknowledgement of it being an issue by FDev, I think we must assume it is the new normal.
not likely. They have gone radio silent on it. In Frontier speak that means they don't know how their game works or how to fix it. If they do manage to fix it, it will be too late to rollback the damage.
They did actually acknowledge it, and advised it was
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
These changes can and have been made server-side. Post 3.3 FD were forever tinkering with the equations.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
At least this time appears to be an amplification rather than the opposite effect from the incident with logs of less than 1 being negative, and the units of eg exploration being so high (1 million credits) than most BGS transactions were less than 1.
More bang for you buck rather than things blowing up in your face. BTW can I apologise now to our neighbours who wake up to communist tanks on the lawn, It really not intentional, we just can't control it all.