7 days of war is WAY too long...

[Aashenfox]

I think it's time to say the BGS attempt was nice and all but please can we have the whole thing back to how it was before 3.3? Did anyone ask for these changes?

Apart from the fact that it's so borked there are no words to describe it, who decided warring for SEVEN WHOLE DAYS (many games are finished in that time) seems reasonable...?

Now smaller groups will have to go at it HARD for at east 5 days of the war (to avoid a draw by the enemy winning decisively the last 3, despite your winning the first 4 (another idea that sounded alright but as it happens turns out to be idiotic). For people with busy factions, they are never going to be out of the CZs.

Oh and can I just say again, regarding the plethora of other hopelessly broken parts...Why don't you test this stuff? Absolutely shameful performance from a software company. Yet again. Like every patch. Have you guys given up trying to do it right nowadays? Do you just accept that every release is going to be a total debacle so you don't even test stuff at all any more?

 

[lollo1572]

I have a question and write here, if you don't mind! As you are saying, conflicts seem too long but.... in the seven days is it enough to mantain an advantage to win ( close victory) or we have to go for a Total victory to win???? In the first case... should be a minor waste of time...

 

[Captain Willard]

I don't see a problem. PMF's killed the bgs for me and now that it's not in your favor , you don't like it. Funny how that works eh?
Mebbee make it work instead of whining? A week after launch and you don't have an instant win, to bad, so sad.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Changes are always hurting people because we get used to operate in standardised ways. These new things disrupt many and drag them out of their comfort zone.

Just remember that everyone playing this game and the BGS part of it ultimately just builds Sandcastles. At one point in time memories will be all that is left.

So there is the choice to embrace the Changes and try to work with them. Bugs are plentiful I give you that, but nobody ever delivered anything that was perfect from the get go.

Or do you get everything right all the time when introducing something new? Doubt it, but you demand it from others. A understandable human reaction but flawed due to it.

You can give up and stop what you were doing if you deem it not worth your time anymore. Or adapt and continue.

 

[lollo1572]

I don't mind "on my favour"...... BGS for me was 90% ED before and now, was just asking a thing to better learn new mechanics. Sometimes in BGS even loosing is a deal.... probably you don't know what BGS is..... so, go and explore, fight thargoids, everything you want but BGS...... ;-)

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

I have a question and write here, if you don't mind! As you are saying, conflicts seem too long but.... in the seven days is it enough to mantain an advantage to win ( close victory) or we have to go for a Total victory to win???? In the first case... should be a minor waste of time...

Supposedly the 3 variants Close Victory, Victory and Total Victory differ in how big the gap between the two warring MF will be after its conclusion. How much % that translates to though is currently not fully researched (I think).

 

[lollo1572]

I like new bgs!!! I'm not scared about it!!!! Hope FDEVs...... fix bugs soon!!!!

 

[FrogsFriend]

Existing 'rules' we were used to have changed and lots of new things have been added but we'll adapt, work out how to use the new features to our advantage (same as we've done before) and continue on.

Can't say for sure until some of this first raft of wars caused by the state reset reach completion, but I don't believe you need to win a total victory in every war. A draw or narrow victory will probably do in most cases. Do a little work on the first day and then just keep an eye on it so you can pitch in if it starts to go against you. Obviously if you're facing actual player opposition, whether intentional or just passing traffic, then you'll need to put some more effort in. No easy victory by dumping exploration data before the war even starts.

 

[Marra Morgan]

who decided warring for SEVEN WHOLE DAYS (many games are finished in that time) seems reasonable...?

I think it's quite reasonable to be expected to put in sustained effort to win a war. Factions who have over-expanded or lack organisation / motivation will lose out. This is fine, imo.

Changes are always hurting people because we get used to operate in standardised ways. These new things disrupt many and drag them out of their comfort zone.

Just remember that everyone playing this game and the BGS part of it ultimately just builds Sandcastles. At one point in time memories will be all that is left.

So there is the choice to embrace the Changes and try to work with them. Bugs are plentiful I give you that, but nobody ever delivered anything that was perfect from the get go.

Or do you get everything right all the time when introducing something new? Doubt it, but you demand it from others. A understandable human reaction but flawed due to it.

You can give up and stop what you were doing if you deem it not worth your time anymore. Or adapt and continue.

Well said.

 

[lollo1572]

Existing 'rules' we were used to have changed and lots of new things have been added but we'll adapt, work out how to use the new features to our advantage (same as we've done before) and continue on.

Can't say for sure until some of this first raft of wars caused by the state reset reach completion, but I don't believe you need to win a total victory in every war. A draw or narrow victory will probably do in most cases. Do a little work on the first day and then just keep an eye on it so you can pitch in if it starts to go against you. Obviously if you're facing actual player opposition, whether intentional or just passing traffic, then you'll need to put some more effort in. No easy victory by dumping exploration data before the war even starts.

This is how I'm doing! Thanks!

 

[Aashenfox]

I don't see a problem. PMF's killed the bgs for me and now that it's not in your favor , you don't like it. Funny how that works eh?
Mebbee make it work instead of whining? A week after launch and you don't have an instant win, to bad, so sad.

Lol, thanks for your utterly worthless and misguided input, I don't even have a player faction.

 

[Aashenfox]

It can hardly be said that I'm having comfort zone issues, since 1,i only started playing the bgs a few months ago, and 2) I don't have a faction.

Why is this about me? Lol, I'm flattered guys but this isn't about me. It's about the simple fact a change designed to make it easier for smaller groups to compete is ultimately going to have the opposite effect.

 

[the100thmonkey]

It can hardly be said that I'm having comfort zone issues, since 1,i only started playing the bgs a few months ago, and 2) I don't have a faction.

Why is this about me? Lol, I'm flattered guys but this isn't about me. It's about the simple fact a change designed to make it easier for smaller groups to compete is ultimately going to have the opposite effect.

While my views on the changes to the BGS are somewhat less than positive and I agree with the general thrust of your post, I have to wonder where you got the idea that these changes were intended to make the BGS easier for smaller groups. The fact is that the changes were floated with the triple elite groups in the private forum reserved for their representatives. The changes were not discussed with any other group of players, to my knowledge. This, along with comments in the BGS livestream for 3.3, strongly implies that they were, in fact, intended to make the BGS friendlier to very large groups.

 

[Aashenfox]

While my views on the changes to the BGS are somewhat less than positive and I agree with the general thrust of your post, I have to wonder where you got the idea that these changes were intended to make the BGS easier for smaller groups. The fact is that the changes were floated with the triple elite groups in the private forum reserved for their representatives. The changes were not discussed with any other group of players, to my knowledge. This, along with comments in the BGS livestream for 3.3, strongly implies that they were, in fact, intended to make the BGS friendlier to very large groups.

I believe it was cited as the reason in the livestream on the matter prior to beta, but I also remember hearing something before that. I could be wrong though and of course it doesn't really matter what the reason is, at the end of the day a bad change is a bad change.

P.S. I suppose I should also point out, my group is not small, we will have no trouble competing, though I do worry that we will spend a lot of time in CZs from now on instead of doing interesting strategic manipulation with more strategic methods. Again this isn't a personal perspective, it's just a perspective.

 

[the100thmonkey]

P.S. I suppose I should also point out, my group is not small, we will have no trouble competing, though I do worry that we will spend a lot of time in CZs from now on instead of doing interesting strategic manipulation with more strategic methods. Again this isn't a personal perspective, it's just a perspective.

Yup. Strategy is now basically "smash".

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I think it's quite reasonable to be expected to put in sustained effort to win a war. Factions who have over-expanded or lack organisation / motivation will lose out. This is fine, imo.

Some types of over-expanded factions, especially the smaller ones, will gain quite a bit from this, I think - you can now expand to a system you don't particularly care about (which is easy enough to do accidentally, in many systems) and don't then have to spend weeks arranging a retreat again, or months trying to keep your faction out of a war there (if it gets in a war, just ignore it). Diplomacy may also get easier as having a non-controlling presence in a neighbouring PMF's system will be less of an issue for both parties - they can kick your branch there down a bit if it gets too high, or lock it up in conflicts, without interfering much with your activities elsewhere.

 

[Marra Morgan]

Some types of over-expanded factions, especially the smaller ones, will gain quite a bit from this, I think - you can now expand to a system you don't particularly care about (which is easy enough to do accidentally, in many systems) and don't then have to spend weeks arranging a retreat again, or months trying to keep your faction out of a war there (if it gets in a war, just ignore it). Diplomacy may also get easier as having a non-controlling presence in a neighbouring PMF's system will be less of an issue for both parties - they can kick your branch there down a bit if it gets too high, or lock it up in conflicts, without interfering much with your activities elsewhere.

Being one of those over-expanded factions with a small group of players, I was kinda hoping we could easily lose some of our burden and make that faction overview screen easier to scroll through

Still, if it means we don't actively have to play caretaker and bore ourselves to death, that's fine too.

Thanks again for the insight, Ian

 

[_Flin_]

IMHO the changes are a dumbing down of the BGS, unless there are some things lurking in the shadows we have not noticed yet and that weren't announced.

Conflict states Fake too long, that is true. It is 10 days with pending.

Apart from that judgment is still open. Bugs need to be ironed out and we will see how this plays now. Judgment can probably done around next March. Play it a quarter, then we will see what happens and how the game is played.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

It can hardly be said that I'm having comfort zone issues, since 1,i only started playing the bgs a few months ago, and 2) I don't have a faction.

So to understand that correctly:

You're complaining about the BGS changes although you have no Minor faction - either adopted or inserted by FD for your Wing. You simply complain because the 10 days the new conflicts take are too long because in the old System you could slam opponents that didn't put up enough of a fight in...moment, 3 days pending plus 4 days minimum duration = 7 days.

You do know that both War and Civil War had a estimated maximum runtime of up to 28 days and Elections 14, now all being shortened to a number lower then any of that is a improvement in my book.

There are no guaranteed wins anymore by slamming down the % of the opposition by killing Security etc. before armed conflicts go live. You have to stay in the CZ and fight at least for 5 days straight and win to make a difference if you're faced with opposition.

Sounds fair in my book.

 

[Dommarraa]

I am not scared of the bgs changes, but even with the bugs fixed, I am bored of it already.
No more strategy, no more subtly, as stated quite sustinctly earlier, just 'smash'

I can't see who these changes are supposed to benefit, large and small alike are disadvantaged. The changes are hardly likely to attract anyone with a different game style.