Only the 3rd you know of,not reliant on 90% double expansion % loss (whatever that means!) and not dependent on two system bug. And what have FD said on this?
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Only the 3rd you know of,not reliant on 90% double expansion % loss (whatever that means!) and not dependent on two system bug. And what have FD said on this?
1) For one apparently knowing about it happening at all is an achievement, going by your reaction. So if there are other cases out there, no one mentioned it.
2) Expansions happen above 75% and you lose about 15% during its active phase, so one theory was you need double the amount, so 90% to conduct a Hyperexpansion. That was proven as false.
3) The circumstances aren't clear. I also don't know if the other parties that had those things happen reported it as a bug or accepted it as a hidden feature. Since its recreation is a near mystery - but apparently possible - one can't rule out either. I only noticed one today. I only knew of the other two from hearsay. Which didn't stop me from trying to create one myself. Funny enough it worked were it wasn't planned and failed wherever it was tested. Go figure. So feel free to ask FD.
All correct
Just to clarify and correct, SaliVader only asks about Influence effects, not Reputation. Likewise Limoncello Lizard's response only addresses influence effects.
Your comment about reputation effects is correct, but that was not the question, so Limoncello's post is completely correct.
I mention this explicitly because conflation of reputation and influence effects in discussion is something that confuses a lot of people and leads to a lot of misinformation (something the guide will hopefully help with)
So it might just be an observational mistake.
And bearing in mind you have all the information of systems, factions etc I would think your in a better position than me to ask FD.
Has this only happened since 2.1, because previously no % was lost during the Expansion phase. I only ask that from what you say in point 2)
Last edited:
I would go even as far as to say 2.1.05 to be precise. It started happening with the new "Border" feature of local expansions. This made it a theory to be a new feature instead.
And no, this is 100% NOT an observation error. It is confirmed in two cases. There is no guarantee for the third.
Never heard anything of that description either. Anyone else? Or am I the only one living in a separate 'bubble' hahaha
Wrong. They weren't random at all. They followed the rule of the nearest system to the expanding system that contained less than 6 factions i think it was. Myself and a co commander actually used EDDB to establish the proximity of the systems with stations to our systems, and slowly but surely followed the pattern. Once you had filled all the systems up to 20ly approx, then things went strange apparently, but we never got that far before 2.1 dropped. That is when FD changed things and opened expansion into systems with 7 or less. We believe they did this as a balance to the Investment state and Retreat state. They also put in you can't Retreat from your home system (and Home systems include any system the faction was added into by FD when Horizons dropped at the start of the year) at the same time, as well as a minimum of 3 factions in a system once it has contained 3 or more.
Computers can't do random. Just very big and complex algorithms which give an appearance of randomness. And that just doesn't sound very FD.
Explain that to the many "pre 2.1" faction placements all around their local clusters. Not in the nearest, but in any available system. Explain that to the people working those regions and trying to clean (retreat) those clusters into a cohesive political body, hoping not to miss the one system 24ly away in which the faction just so happens to be statelocked.
It was NOT following a clear directive beforehand. No matter what you say. The insane results are still all around you.
It was NOT following a clear directive beforehand. No matter what you say. The insane results are still all around you.
Well you read back this thread 250 pages and youll see constant discussions and theories on this and final conclusions. We even went to all the systems listed on EDDB within 30ly (that was the expansion limit figure banding around at the time) to find how many factions were in those systems. Made a spreadsheet, and away we went. And it followed it, spot on. Not just my Expansions but his as well. You might have thought it was random, and it looked random. But there were enough people on this thread 8 months ago in the knowledge.
And pre 2.1 ... there was no cleaning as Retreat wasn't even possible. 7 was the theoretical limit, although some Cmdrs raised bug reports of Expanding into a system to make 8 factions. One Cmdr was told to look beyond the 30ly range for his expansion, a dev saying it could be upwards of 50Ly.
So if you think you have found a bug, report it. Show us the evidence of this Dual Expansion. Sorry, but I don't believe it. And until I see evidence for it (FD saying yes is about the only evidence you can show me now as it apparently has happened) I will remain dubious. That's not to say it didn't happen, but if I said I expanded on 50%, this thread would ring with people shouting "B*****IT" and rightly so, and want the evidence.
I and the other group that observed it are pretty thorough on system observations. I even control each expansion directly and make sure no faction we work overextends by keeping the unconsolidated ones below 2. So each expansion is pre-planned and chosen.
I don't care if you believe it. It happened. Two times 100% confirmed and a third time supposedly for someone else. I also got a theory how it works by now. But with so much constant flak, I don't feel like sharing outside of my groups alliances anymore.
Just stick to your bubble version then.
I don't care if you believe it. It happened. Two times 100% confirmed and a third time supposedly for someone else. I also got a theory how it works by now. But with so much constant flak, I don't feel like sharing outside of my groups alliances anymore.
Just stick to your bubble version then.
Right, here's the thing.
Some centuries ago, a man called Copernicus said that everything doesn't revolve around the earth, but the sun instead. Now a lot of people said stop being a idiot, but he said no seriously. It all goes around the sun. Here's the proof. And slowly they came round to his thinking after he showed them the evidence. For some, it took a very long time. But now they are the idiots. You propose to know something, your Copernicus.
I'm the doubter, I might well be the idiot.
But for something I haven't observed, and no one else here has mentioned and there are plenty here who's contribution I have come to trust as my own observations have corroborated what they have said would be, then forgive me for being somewhat skeptical.
Ever wonder why your getting so much flak?
Ever wonder if your getting so much flak that maybe my bubble is the same as most others here and yours is the odd one?
And just to show you, here is a snap of the spreadsheet I run showing the distance and factions in system prior to 2.1 because the one with 6 in it I didn't expand into.
![cPhOdgL.jpg](http://[URL="http://imgur.com/cPhOdgL"][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cPhOdgL.jpg)
Last edited:
Both of these systems have exact 9.1%, are the follow ups of expansion from HIP 10137 and NEITHER had % changed by natural decay or accidental missions.
I think the oddness of both of them being at exactly expansion percent should suffice. I worked 11886 for over a week to clear all rabble before we land to make sure no war starts and all before us own assets.
Seeing as you like to mark down expansions, you surely know that 9.1% is standard as a starting % if no one catches them on their way up from 7% to 9.1% to war first thing in the morning.
I think the oddness of both of them being at exactly expansion percent should suffice. I worked 11886 for over a week to clear all rabble before we land to make sure no war starts and all before us own assets.
Seeing as you like to mark down expansions, you surely know that 9.1% is standard as a starting % if no one catches them on their way up from 7% to 9.1% to war first thing in the morning.
Right, so instead of getting shirty and uptight about things when someone questions what your saying, how about going 'hey people check this out!' and show the evidence first off. Yes it looks like it now. Your Copernicus and I'm the idiot. And I'm good with that. Now fire it off to FD and say 'hey you have a bug here I think' ... they might say no it was meant to happen and then you need to figure out the mechanic. Why look for a mechanic when it might be a bug they don't know of.
Are you already in Muthnir?
Are you already in Muthnir?
Last edited:
The last BGS bug I know off was later called "Ceasefire", left ingame and drives people nuts to this day... without any comments how this CZ thing works by FD to this day.
I take my Hyperexpansion feature, explore it and love each instance it happens. We all saw how much FD cares about the inconvenient BGS 'features'. I doubt they care for beneficial ones any more than that.
I take my Hyperexpansion feature, explore it and love each instance it happens. We all saw how much FD cares about the inconvenient BGS 'features'. I doubt they care for beneficial ones any more than that.
Well you obviously have a negative view on FD's response to BGS bugs. Myself, my fellow Cmdrs who I play with have had nothing but positive responses from them when we have questioned and reported things. Sometimes it hasn't worked in our favour, but then things haven't worked as they should have. Static % in some systems, and they have got it moving again. One system was duplicated elsewhere in the bubble, highlighted by a fellow and reported. Turned into Galnet news in the end and they renamed the other system and its stations in order to get them both working properly.
They didn't care for the inconvenient BGS feature of Boom being a blocker for us and it is now gone, you can't knock them for that.
The BGS is what it is, and we play it. But without us saying 'this is working well but this isn't' then it will never change. And the more different voices saying this needs looking at, the more likely they will take notice.
Said it before and I'll repeat for you. The BGS is the spine of this game. People know its there but don't really notice it. It under pins so much of what the Cmdrs do, but they don't know it. Freeze it tomorrow, and all hell would break loose on the forums because they can't do what they want to do. they all play the BGS, just don't know it.
And for any serious BGS player .... who fights CZ's anymore? You can smash the needed % well before then. Ceasefire is an annoyance to those that don't know and have yet to learn.
You never fought a PMF vs PMF war, right? Of course any PvE player uses "Cold Wars" to win. You don't always have the luxury. Either by people just waltzing through your region, a silent zerg, some mercenaries or the very enemy of your war. So it does matter. And it can unnerve people. Don't write it off like that.
Either way, Hyperexpansions are beneficial. So let's just enjoy our feature and work with it.
Let us put it into the row of emergent gameplay as an emergent feature.
Of course. We already consolidated a Base Superiority.
Last edited:
Bullsh*... expansions were not random before 2.1.05. We did targeted expansions since october last year.
I dont know what gets more on my nerves.... the falsehoods derailing this thread or the air of absolute confidence needed for every charlatanry to be successful.
Please share, I would like to try it with my faction
The problem is he can't, he doesn't know how it happens nor can he confirm it actually did happen in the third case.