Page 17 of 24 First 13151617181921 Last
Results 241 to 255 of 355

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: unexplained drops in INF in the BGS for Anarchists Minor factions since the update

  1. #241
    Originally Posted by sirius42 View Post (Source)
    I experienced the same problems with the BGS since the last big update, first with selling exploration data (i made a test see screenshot below) and now with doing missions.

    I didnt read thought the whole thread but could it be that the unusual influence drops and gains are connected with the new "Gold Rush" mechanic ?
    What i mean, there are thousand of people selling tons of Low Temperatur Diamonds and Void Opals to stations with high demand prices. So if this people seeling them to stations in your system which are not controlled by your minor faction it would push the influence of other minor factions in your systems resulting in a influence loss for the minor factions your are working for. I got this suspicion when i saw two stations in systems where i work for my minor faction who had +1 Million selling prices for LTD and Void Opals, etc and the demand indicator was down to 1 from 3 at the commodity screen, means that there have been people selling this minerals at the station controlled by an enemy minor faction

    Anyway i really like the new exploration and mining mechanics and all over the state of ED after my 2 years break but this dodgy state of the BGS is very annoying at the moment.

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post7351040
    i have factions that were running correct BGS and getting correct results. I have other factions tryin to do the same work and get completely different results. The bonus’s on those mining mats wouldn’t account for all the system that were seeing inconsistent results. I still feel like FDev is coding each system separately. It’s the only thing that makes sense as to why there is no consistency. I feel like my list of mf’s that are working correctly got a bit longer since 3.3.02 but I can see some are still seeing the backwards effects.

  2. #242
    Originally Posted by tactical bacon View Post (Source)
    dont think it is linked to the mining rush. our home system is only offering 250k for opals the rest of the high demand minerals are lower than that and all have no demand, we own the stations so any sales would help us yet we are seeing a steady 0.3% decline in inf when we do no BGS work at all but if we hand in data, mission run ect for our faction we see a large drop our mission rewards are given to the other factions in the system not us the controlling faction
    I am talking about the stations you dont own in your system or systems and low demand means that someone sold that much of a commodity that the station dont need anymore of it respectively that the price will fall and the Gold Rush will be over and that was the sign in two of my systems that there have been sold big amounts of high value minerals to enemy minor factions probably resulting in a fall of influence for my minor faction.
    There is something wrong with some mission types also, for example assassination missions give the influence to the target faction.

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...14#post7355114

  3. #243
    Originally Posted by QA-Jack View Post (Source)
    Hey Cmdrs,

    Thanks for your continued reports regarding this - I have bumped this internally and will update you as and when I can!
    (I have also stickied this thread due to the traffic its seeing)

    Stay safe out there o7

    Hi Jack,

    Any updates on our particular defect?

    Like many here, the Spice Smugglers faction in the Grebegus system has their influence lowered in response to things like mission influence rewards. This has stopped or undone the efforts of everyone in this thread and I'm sure many who haven't shown up.

    Has there been any word or this? Has this issue been acknowledged or reproduced by anyone on the dev team? It's been 38 days. I feel like we are still trying to convince someone there is a problem beyond "balance fixes". Some factions like ours have their influence completely misattributed, while others seem to have more random effects. Multiple people here have posted their client logs and the results. No amount of re-balancing will fix those issues.

    Thanks for your attention.

  4. #244
    Okay, I’m a huge fan of Elite Dangerous. I played Elite on my Commodore 64 when I was a Kid, skipped the next iteration due to raising a family and establishing a career, but when Elite Dangerous came along I took it in as the one and only game I play – shear rapture.

    Also, I’ve played every aspect of the game and to date I have invested 709.98 ($1275.94 AUD), so now I just wish to enjoy the one part of the game that I’ve found the most satisfying – the background simulation.

    However, since the release of 3.3 I see two situations; either Frontier Developments tried to improve the background simulation gameplay and are too spent to fix errors, or they are trying to turn players away to other aspects of the game due to an utter contempt of players who are not partaking in certain parts of the game such as Power Play, Galnet Storyline, Thargoids, hell even CQC. That being said I am leaning towards that they tried to give us a better game, but aren’t following through with necessary resources.

    This I say to any moderator who is reading this, ‘please raise any and all concerns we have, from across any similar threads, directly to Frontier Developments, and please ask them to communicate with us on this very issue of background simulation inconsistencies’.

  5. #245
    People have requested politely, ranted angrily, asked forcefully in a very respectful manner, and all have been totally ignored. The BGS community has even had to go to the astonishing step of creating its own list of know bugs, which should been curated and maintained by FD Support.
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...-AEDC-Discord)

    Fd have made many bad decisions in the past, ignored the pleas of customers and generally made bad situations worse numerous times, but on this issue they have exceeded themselves in their truly terrible customer relations.
    The lack of white Knight comments on the issue indicates how utterly indefensible their response is.

    Get your act together fd, and engage IMMEDIATLY.

  6. #246
    I believe some people here are forgeting to count the controlling faction diference.
    What I meen to say is that controlling factions on a system dont feel so expressively INF drops as do other minor factions, hence replys like "we dont see grate fluctuations on our systems".
    Try comparing data of minor factions not controlling systems, like my own adn several other, and you will see a totaly diferent, and broken, picture.

  7. #247
    Hello? FDEV? Where are you? Please step up your communication game. You're literally screwing over every group in your game and just staying quiet about it. If I create a ticket they tell me to go to the forums. When I come here..... crickets. Not how customer support should work. Again, we love you, we love the game. But don't spit on us and tell us it's raining.

  8. #248
    Originally Posted by LordCrasher View Post (Source)
    I believe some people here are forgeting to count the controlling faction diference.
    What I meen to say is that controlling factions on a system dont feel so expressively INF drops as do other minor factions, hence replys like "we dont see grate fluctuations on our systems".
    Try comparing data of minor factions not controlling systems, like my own adn several other, and you will see a totaly diferent, and broken, picture.
    The BGS is clearly bugged and I’d say most of us aren’t here by mistake. When killing your in system security it puts up influence for the faction the security belongs to. Some systems are working and some are not. If you believe you’re not one having the backwards BGS then count yourself very lucky. Many others came here because they know their BGS isn’t right.

  9. #249
    Originally Posted by Dommarraa View Post (Source)
    People have requested politely, ranted angrily, asked forcefully in a very respectful manner, and all have been totally ignored. The BGS community has even had to go to the astonishing step of creating its own list of know bugs, which should been curated and maintained by FD Support.
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...-AEDC-Discord)

    Fd have made many bad decisions in the past, ignored the pleas of customers and generally made bad situations worse numerous times, but on this issue they have exceeded themselves in their truly terrible customer relations.
    The lack of white Knight comments on the issue indicates how utterly indefensible their response is.

    Get your act together fd, and engage IMMEDIATLY.

    Its worse than that. The BGS is fundamentally broken and has been since 3.3 launched, and what BGS change was implemented after 5 weeks (ok two of whose were over the christmas)? rebalancing. rebalancing a broken system.

  10. This is the last staff post in this thread. #250
    Hey all,

    Thank you all of your continued patience and feedback whilst we continue to tune the balancing of the faction simulation after Chapter Four, we are reading all of your feedback and acting upon it where we can.

    We're happy with the galaxy's overall results from the specific balancing changes from last week's 3.3.02 update, but that was just one of many steps we've taken since the Chapter Four release as part of our on-going balancing process.

    Letting us know that you're not seeing the expected results after Saturday's tick from your actions is useful feedback, but we need specific information to enable us to look into your particular circumstances.

    To look at an unexpected faction result, such as "We pushed a lot of +inf% to Faction A through missions, bounties & trading, Faction B and C had a bit of +inf% in the same system from bounties, so Faction A didn't increase as much as we'd expect", as a minimum we need to know:
    - the faction
    - the starsystem
    - the approximate date when you saw the unexpected result

    In addition, to consider your feedback when we're investigating the balance of particular actions, such as a mission result affecting an unexpected faction, or some exploration data sales not having a positive effect then we'd also need:
    - all of the above AND
    - your commander name or names
    - the approximate date / time or location of your actions

    To make sure we can achieve the right balance, and make the best gameplay experience for everyone, when reporting on this issue please reply to this thread with a comment containing the specific information listed above.


    Thanks!

  11. #251
    Plus add API log extracts when possible.

  12. #252
    Meanwhile, here is a useful list of things that are not working and have been observed by many players and groups:

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...-AEDC-Discord)

  13. #253
    Thanks for the update Ed.

  14. #254
    Originally Posted by Edward Lewis View Post (Source)
    Hey all,

    Thank you all of your continued patience and feedback whilst we continue to tune the balancing of the faction simulation after Chapter Four, we are reading all of your feedback and acting upon it where we can.

    We're happy with the galaxy's overall results from the specific balancing changes from last week's 3.3.02 update, but that was just one of many steps we've taken since the Chapter Four release as part of our on-going balancing process.

    Letting us know that you're not seeing the expected results after Saturday's tick from your actions is useful feedback, but we need specific information to enable us to look into your particular circumstances.

    To look at an unexpected faction result, such as "We pushed a lot of +inf% to Faction A through missions, bounties & trading, Faction B and C had a bit of +inf% in the same system from bounties, so Faction A didn't increase as much as we'd expect", as a minimum we need to know:
    - the faction
    - the starsystem
    - the approximate date when you saw the unexpected result

    In addition, to consider your feedback when we're investigating the balance of particular actions, such as a mission result affecting an unexpected faction, or some exploration data sales not having a positive effect then we'd also need:
    - all of the above AND
    - your commander name or names
    - the approximate date / time or location of your actions

    To make sure we can achieve the right balance, and make the best gameplay experience for everyone, when reporting on this issue please reply to this thread with a comment containing the specific information listed above.


    Thanks!

    Where do you want us to send the data? I've sent it to QA in DMs, here and in tickets and never get a response, so not sure if it's actually being used. What's the best way to send to make sure it get's looked at?

    EDIT: See you said to post it here. Which some groups will not want to do.

  15. #255
    1/18/2019
    CMDR mrm0729 sold 1,000 tons of commodities with minimum profit of 1,000c per ton to Gibson Stop in Pardal. Influence of BD+01 3574 Crimson Legal Comms went from 58.7 to 54

    1/19/2019
    CMDR Kit O'caoimh sold ~1,000 tons of commodities with a minimum profit of 500c per ton to Gibson Stop in Pardal. Influence of BD+01 3574 Crimson Legal Comms went from 54 to 47.65

    CMDR Kit O'Caoimh sold 1,000 tons of mineral oil with 702c profit per ton to stations in Itela system. Influence of Itela Gold Transport Industries went from 44.95 to 42.7

    Tests were done in wild and could have other actions but results were consistently going down.