Increased volatility in the BGS -runaway leaders many retreats

Riverside

Riverside
Selling bounties (to lower factions) appears to have the expected effect (direction & approximate scale). Missions & trading appear to have minimal effect. Didn't try exploration data.
 

dAlexis

dAlexis
Tim Smith said:
Hi everyone!

We wanted to address a few concerns here about the BGS, explain why some things have happened and what is going to happen, buckle up!

[eaten by mice 2 avoid overquoting] ;)

If you see something you think needs investigating, you can help the development team by including the following details in your feedback:
  • The faction
  • The star system
  • The date
  • What you think is wrong

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!

o7 Commanders
Click to expand...

Of course, I'll post exact examples, according to the form requested, but first of all I want to say, what's gone wrong (BTW, nearly full list of Colonia oddities is here https://cdb.sotl.org.uk, just look on influence history 4 each faction). It seems to me, that the curve of calculating influence is lowered. Why was it done - no mind :( Previously if you want to increase influence from 65 to 75% was needed 2-3 times more efforts, than from 5 to 15%. The same situation is 4 lowering somebody. Now the curve is looking completely flat. What happened due to this

1. In fact, unwanted conflicts and anarchy are provoked. In current situation factions are generally peaceful, wars are rare, and many factions have if not diplomatic agreements (such as Jaques Accord), but status-quo. Of course, exclusions are present, but generally everything is as I wrote. This is greatly improving possible development.
2. It's impossible to plan faction development and expansions in such unpredictable conditions. And this planning is the key point in BGS - but now it looks nearly impossible. This means, that you completely crossed the BGS itself.

Please, roll everything back 4 one week! It was done 4 powerplay, why not to do it for BGS!?

Now the examples, as requested:

  • ICU Colonial Corps
  • Pekoe
  • June 9th 2020
  • Increase to 97 (97!) percent! Normally it can be done by 5-6 men

  • ICU Colonial Corps
  • Magellan
  • June 11th
  • Drop from 7 to 2 percent. The largest drop I see was from 5 to 1
 

Herr Tenma

H
We have 6 controlled systems, and have seen a constant rise of 6-7% per day in 5 of them (one hit 98% so cant go any higher) and the 6th is a special case as other factions locked inf due to war states. We have done little to no effort to maintain any of them since the carrier update.
We also now have a total of 13 active or pending retreat states of MF in our systems, previously it was unusual to have 1 across all our controlled systems.
We've also seen our INF in non-controlled systems dropping rapidly and now have an active and pending retreat, with more likely to follow if current trends continue.

This is insane and unmaintainable.

Edits: typos
 
Last edited:

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Interesting numbers in Deriso here

Deriso (Eol Prou LW-L c8-260) - History

cdb.sotl.org.uk
Stable before, new stable afterwards, agri system so shouldn't be directly affected by FCs and the new Tritium economy, extremely consistent per-tick rise for the controlling faction.

Looking around the Colonia region more generally, and ignoring early shakiness on release day, the pattern seems to be that system owners get a big boost, station owners who don't control the system (rare here, hard to generalise) are generally able to tread water, and everyone else drops hard. Systems with single-digit traffic figures seem less affected and remain more stable (some of them rather more stable than I'd expect, in fact).

Meanwhile in Hephaestus

Hephaestus (Eol Prou LW-L c8-28) - History

cdb.sotl.org.uk
seems an unusually stable exception for a high-traffic low-population system but is also I think under coordinated attack rather than just passing traffic - more negatives against the system controller, and also probably quite a few Colonia Council bounties being earned elsewhere and redeemed here.

Working theory: the benefits of having multiple types of influence source have become more significant (or possibly just the effectiveness of missions has been generally reduced)
 

CunningStunt

C
Tim Smith said:
If you see something you think needs investigating, you can help the development team by including the following details in your feedback:
  • The faction
  • The star system
  • The date
  • What you think is wrong
Click to expand...

Thank you Tim, please have someone look into our home system. Even before the update we were actively working to reduce our influence, but instead now we are 76.6% after two massive spikes in influence and we have an expansion pending that we do not want as it will put us in a system that one of our allies is in. This is almost certainly down to either a bug or a change in the way influence is calculated. Ideally we want this pending expansion cancelled.

  • The faction - Artemis Corporation
  • The star system - Saisiyat
  • The date - Since the fleet carrier patch
  • What you think is wrong - We got what looks like maximum daily growth 2 days in a row even though before the update (and since) we have been working for all factions apart from our own with the intention of reducing our system influence. The fleet carrier update has put is in a pending, unwanted, expansion
 

CunningStunt

C
Vingtetun said:
Yesterday the number of Expansions listed was 4300
Today it is 6700 - or to put it into perspective - 30% of the populated systems in the galaxy.
Click to expand...
So in addition to adding even more player controlled groups, we now have over 6000 existing PMFs about to expand. This is going to be mayhem. I'm assuming Fdev cannot roll back bgs without deleting the new player groups that were added.
 

Col_Cassad

C
The faction that controls the system and, as a result, the main spaceport or several of them, receives additional tools for increasing influence (trade, cartography, issuing a bounty in the system). It is well known.
A summary of the analysis of a large number of systems.
Any activity has increased its weight several times (maybe 5-10 times). As a result - huge volatility even from minor interactions. Plus the advantages that the controlling faction has.
Effects: the rapid growth of influence of the controlling factions in all systems where there are random traffic and parallel displacement of all others.
After the first or second tick, a huge number of expansion starts took place. In parallel, we have a huge number of retreats. Examples when a dozen or more retreats appear in the same cube after the second tick are not alone.
I predict a steady and fast tendency to increase the influence of the controlling faction in almost any system to the level of expansion start, and almost every system will be prone to retreats if this is not actively countered.

Instead of postscript. BGS is a separate layer of this game, the essence of which is close to turn-based strategy and the MAIN management of all movements. The changes brought by the update taking away the main aspect of this game: MANAGEMENT. This game is completely broken.

P.S. The previous model was well balanced before the update. Why did you need to change this if there wasn’t a massive community request for it? I vote to roll back the changes.
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Jane Turner
the previous system of normalisation had a stabilising effect, favouring factions on low influence over those with high influence - so systems would settle out unless concerted effort was made to change them. That feedback loop seems to have been removed....
1591964856487.png

1591964926479.png

1591964976986.png
 

Vortex-XIII

Vortex-XIII
resumed BGS ops yesterday after having called it off for the first few days since the update,
Only had a few people doing 'a little bit' of infl. management in 3 systems. minor bounty hunting, a handful of missions 'on the fly'.
The result this morning? Looks more like we tripled our forces and did an all-out assault on those systems.

note: 'backwater' systems, low to no traffic (hence low chance of any other factions having been worked) - but 2 of those 3 systems have >1mil pop

more details? not on an open channel ;-)
 

Walter2

Walter2
Jane Turner said:
the previous system of normalisation had a stabilising effect, favouring factions on low influence over those with high influence - so systems would settle out unless concerted effort was made to change them. That feedback loop seems to have been removed....
Click to expand...
With a little, carefully-planned effort it might be possible to get all factions in a system into Expansion at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom