Boom is an entirely different proposition to conflict bugs, especially since it hasn't changed. That can be managed.
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Hello, we at Pileus Libertas have been repeating a seemingly constant Civil War with the second largest faction. Though we have been keeping the lions share of influence and we know that the BGS will not give us their station we are always droppijng into Civil Unrest after a completed CW cycle. Is there anyway to explain that/break that cycle?
Also, we are in the process of softening up a neighbouring system. Can we actually enter another system with this bug limiting transfer of control of stations?
Any info or just musings would be most welcome
Gswine
Are you currently the controlling faction of the system? Meaning, do you own the controlling station? What are your influence levels, and that of the second largest one that keeps warring you?
Last edited:
Yes, we are the controlling faction and have been since we entered the BGS. We have had massive swings at times but not dropped below our main rival. We had 74% at the peak of the Civil War but it ended with us at 68% and them at 12% and it still remains that way at the moment (This Civil War, we're talking about the last 48 - 72 hours till current).
Well, we've had some similar finnicky things occur when we were injected. Civil war broke out between our faction and the former controlling faction. We fought and won the war, but no stations changed hands. Theory is that upon injection and manual swapping of the control, the BGS kicked off a civil war for us to 'keep control.' Likely a bug as a result of the manual intervention. Regardless, when we won the war nothing but a bit of influence loss occurred.
Couple more questions, the current war you are in, is it the latest in a string of wars, or still a continuation of an ongoing civil war?
Couple more questions, the current war you are in, is it the latest in a string of wars, or still a continuation of an ongoing civil war?
This was (sorry) our second bout of Civil War. The first lasted barley 48 hours. We entered Lock down after that and though we discussed sparking a Civil war to end Lock down we were surprised when we found ourselves in another Civil War. There are three lesser factions IS and two of these have had Civil Wars running at the same time as ours (in case that's interesting).
Last edited:
The lesser factions fighting each other is likely because they are at near even influence levels, and should'd be playing a large factor beyond stealing some influence from the top faction as they gain influence.
What you might be seeing though is that there are some other actions going on that are ripening you to be attacked. It sounds like your security level is being hurt somehow. For right now, my advice is to win the war again: focus on fighting in the CZs, turn in your bonds, and take combat missions to help fight for your faction. Push as hard as you can. As for preventing something like a lockdown, make sure you aren't having people running illegal missions for smuggling or selling on the black market and such. The cops don't like that and it can contribute. Wars are a tricky thing. When this one is over, check and see if any stations changed hands. Length of war can vary depending on different circumstances. If it ends and you know one side had a heavy lead, and nothing changed, might be a bug. Also if the war keeps occurring, but I wouldn't think 2 wars in a row would be a bug off the bat when it looks like there are some other circumstances at play. How long between the end of the first war, and the start of this one? I assume they were both with the same faction.
Are you sure there are no other player activities going on that could be hurting you? Nearby pirate systems that might be giving out murder civilian missions?
What you might be seeing though is that there are some other actions going on that are ripening you to be attacked. It sounds like your security level is being hurt somehow. For right now, my advice is to win the war again: focus on fighting in the CZs, turn in your bonds, and take combat missions to help fight for your faction. Push as hard as you can. As for preventing something like a lockdown, make sure you aren't having people running illegal missions for smuggling or selling on the black market and such. The cops don't like that and it can contribute. Wars are a tricky thing. When this one is over, check and see if any stations changed hands. Length of war can vary depending on different circumstances. If it ends and you know one side had a heavy lead, and nothing changed, might be a bug. Also if the war keeps occurring, but I wouldn't think 2 wars in a row would be a bug off the bat when it looks like there are some other circumstances at play. How long between the end of the first war, and the start of this one? I assume they were both with the same faction.
Are you sure there are no other player activities going on that could be hurting you? Nearby pirate systems that might be giving out murder civilian missions?
Well our system has an amount of player activity in there so we don't want to be leap to paranoia but there have been some developments that have put us one edge. We also have to suspect that aligned NPC ships are being targeted. Though we have patrolled in open, some ALD activity has been noted but cmdr's not responding to hails amounts to 'players not interested in communication'. We do have to consider activity happening in group or solo that cannot be countered I just hope that paranoia is just what it is.
We were lucky if there was a week between civil wars. I've considered reaching out to ALD's Inquisition and asking if activity has been sanctioned in our area of space though I have no reason to think our group itself represents a valid target.
Is the system currently being affected by Power Play at all? As there are other gears turning that PP brings in. Controlled systems being forced under their control and such.
Sadly, if that is the case it may be all a C-shoot because we can't control the general public and where/how they undermine or whatever for Power Play. Even if they aren't targeting you specifically, if they are targeting the system and you guys are the controlling faction, it would be your NPCs they are shooting down.
This would DEFINITELY be a good reason for low security and lockdowns/civil unrest. If you are a Power Play target, there isn't much you can do. :/
Except: "Do not go gentle into that goodnight."
Sadly, if that is the case it may be all a C-shoot because we can't control the general public and where/how they undermine or whatever for Power Play. Even if they aren't targeting you specifically, if they are targeting the system and you guys are the controlling faction, it would be your NPCs they are shooting down.
This would DEFINITELY be a good reason for low security and lockdowns/civil unrest. If you are a Power Play target, there isn't much you can do. :/
Except: "Do not go gentle into that goodnight."
Last edited:
Well the system has seen low undermining over the PP months. Still, some turns have seen no undermining at all. Could we predict a merit bomb with what we are seeing, not likely. We are only talking a 6% drop, at a crucial moment while we were actively boosting our rep. Speculation abounds as to actions having adverse effects. We did try and play other factions rep while boosting our own. If there had been a real concentrated effort to reach undermining trigger I'd predict a much larger drop. I guess we keep an eye on things while treading water till FD get back to us with some reports of fixes.
So if you guys are actively boosting while people are fighting you as a result of PP, then the two actions could be combined to get your net only 6% drop.
In the end, it just needs more observation. Lots of wheels at work and PP just complicates it more unfortunately. A system more off the beaten path is easier to gauge effects in.
In the end, it just needs more observation. Lots of wheels at work and PP just complicates it more unfortunately. A system more off the beaten path is easier to gauge effects in.
In the past, this has occasionally had unintended effects, such as attributing the influence to the wrong faction. I don't know if this is still the case as of 1.4.
I understand that you need to lower the influence of the controlling fraction to take over another outpost or station in the system? This does not make sense to me at all.
If the controlling fraction are in a state of BOOM how can you tricker a war to conquer the remaining stations \ outposts?
If the controlling fraction are in a state of BOOM how can you tricker a war to conquer the remaining stations \ outposts?
Last edited:
this may not make sense, but it is the only proofed way. anyway, station control us not happening/bugged atm
has any dev actually commented on the stations not flipping thing?
Seeing as 1.4 was supposed to see an array of improvements to the BGS, along with player inserted factions, this issue is a bit of a joke.
Seeing as 1.4 was supposed to see an array of improvements to the BGS, along with player inserted factions, this issue is a bit of a joke.
The guide is excellent, but properly understanding the existing system should only be a basis for the debate on how it can best be altered. We have been left without even more essential functionality since 1.4, but some elements of the background simulation have never been implemented.
--
If the issues with the 1.4 version of wars and civil wars are this serious, I would prefer the multiple wars and civil wars just to be dropped, they were not needed. Many of the extra civil wars aren't even for stations, because of a design that protects stations from being fought over. The system is peculiar, it is counter-intuitive that a controlling faction needs to equalise influence with a faction holding an outpost to fight a civil war with them. An invading faction first needs to control the major station in a system, and only then can it fight for the subsidiary stations, why?
--
Another oddity is that a system with 1000 people can support as many factions as one with 20 billion, and has as many missions on its BBS. Influence percentages fail to convey a sense of what is happening, turning what could be an epic game into one based on staging local elections every day. War is where a people are conquered and made to submit, not another means of gaining their good opinion.
--
The system was counter-intuitive even when we had functional wars. Population and the economy have never worked. Instead we have a shallow and mission-based system that is too vulnerable to exploitation. Even the missions are poorly implemented, for instance it has never been clear why all the combat missions are for an adjacent sector, nor why the freight and delivery missions have generous time limits. Why aren't the goods linked to their place of origin, so that smuggling missions come from systems with little authority and are aimed at high security systems?
--
A station should be owned entirely by a single faction. Population and economic changes happen to that station, and affect both the character of the missions offered from that station and the quality of its defence. If it has sufficient surplus it can contribute to the owning factions attempt to take another station. If we have a simple and effective system at the base level, complexity and good gameplay will then emerge.
--
If the issues with the 1.4 version of wars and civil wars are this serious, I would prefer the multiple wars and civil wars just to be dropped, they were not needed. Many of the extra civil wars aren't even for stations, because of a design that protects stations from being fought over. The system is peculiar, it is counter-intuitive that a controlling faction needs to equalise influence with a faction holding an outpost to fight a civil war with them. An invading faction first needs to control the major station in a system, and only then can it fight for the subsidiary stations, why?
--
Another oddity is that a system with 1000 people can support as many factions as one with 20 billion, and has as many missions on its BBS. Influence percentages fail to convey a sense of what is happening, turning what could be an epic game into one based on staging local elections every day. War is where a people are conquered and made to submit, not another means of gaining their good opinion.
--
The system was counter-intuitive even when we had functional wars. Population and the economy have never worked. Instead we have a shallow and mission-based system that is too vulnerable to exploitation. Even the missions are poorly implemented, for instance it has never been clear why all the combat missions are for an adjacent sector, nor why the freight and delivery missions have generous time limits. Why aren't the goods linked to their place of origin, so that smuggling missions come from systems with little authority and are aimed at high security systems?
--
A station should be owned entirely by a single faction. Population and economic changes happen to that station, and affect both the character of the missions offered from that station and the quality of its defence. If it has sufficient surplus it can contribute to the owning factions attempt to take another station. If we have a simple and effective system at the base level, complexity and good gameplay will then emerge.
It doesn't - if you push your expanded faction straight to 70%, it will trigger a war for the system. If you push it slowly so that it achieves parity with the faction holding a smaller station, a civil war will trigger for that station. We've used this mechanic previously to take over an entire system.
We tend to view influence as the percentage of economic activity controlled by the faction rather than as popularity. It makes more sense that way, although it's a matter of semantics.
Combat missions are an annoyance - in multi-system factions, the combat missions usually target your own faction and ships associated with that faction. The missions ask you to stab yourself in the face, basically, which is dumb and something I'd like to see changed.
Population change would be good to see. I'm not sure that I agree with having only one faction in any station though - how would influence be raised for other factions if they can't commission players to work on their behalf?
Last edited:
My experience with 1.3 was different, on two occasions an invading faction went to war in a system with a faction controlling a secondary station and won the war without capturing a station. Only when the faction was native to the system could it conquer a secondary station in a civil war without first being the controlling faction.
--
It might make more sense for influence percentage to be considered as economic activity, though why would two factions with equal percentages of economic activity go to war? Why could a faction control any economic activity without a station anyway?
--
There would be no 'influence' in a one station one faction method. A system with more than one faction would be at war until resolved, so the entire system would be a conflict zone and missions to destroy enemy traders etc make more sense. The rids the game of another poor concept, the 'conflict zone.' While there would be fewer factions, the new planet bases might offer a method for 'freedom fighters' to take over a station without first owning one, preventing the galaxy becoming too static.
--
The wanted system is another concept that badly lets down the main game. Why should a faction forgive you after a week? Also, why should a faction refrain from placing bounty on you if you do missions for their enemies? If cooperation is an issue, make player claimable bounty different from the bounty you need to pay to have a faction regard you as clean. Problem solved.
--
We can have a better game using only the existing game assets. The star systems as implemented are far blander than the original Elite of thirty years ago, when the government type was vitally important to a Cobra trader. It doesn't have to be like this.
--
It might make more sense for influence percentage to be considered as economic activity, though why would two factions with equal percentages of economic activity go to war? Why could a faction control any economic activity without a station anyway?
--
There would be no 'influence' in a one station one faction method. A system with more than one faction would be at war until resolved, so the entire system would be a conflict zone and missions to destroy enemy traders etc make more sense. The rids the game of another poor concept, the 'conflict zone.' While there would be fewer factions, the new planet bases might offer a method for 'freedom fighters' to take over a station without first owning one, preventing the galaxy becoming too static.
--
The wanted system is another concept that badly lets down the main game. Why should a faction forgive you after a week? Also, why should a faction refrain from placing bounty on you if you do missions for their enemies? If cooperation is an issue, make player claimable bounty different from the bounty you need to pay to have a faction regard you as clean. Problem solved.
--
We can have a better game using only the existing game assets. The star systems as implemented are far blander than the original Elite of thirty years ago, when the government type was vitally important to a Cobra trader. It doesn't have to be like this.
Other than they are looking into the reports of problems to verify they exist...and that they will update the servers Someday™ once they do...nope.