I have seen the same phenomenon. I think the answer is that the update tick is not a single event but a series of corrections that ripple through the systems. If you check your local stats shortly after the tick has started it is possible that a second (or third . . . ?) correction will be applied before the cycle is complete.
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
I've seen that too. I've also seen occasions where the current state listed in the galactic map is different to that listed in the system map for up to half an hour 'after the tick.' I always thought it was just down to the servers having to sync with each other but your theory also makes sense.
raeat
Banned
This is the official word from customer disservice:
"Many players make the mistake of trying to play the BGS like a game. That's not its intention; the BGS exists to breathe life and introduce flow into the galaxy. Sometimes we receive messages from players distressed that their faction wasn't able to expand, or that a war wasn't triggered, or that they can't win control of a system. That's because there is no certainty in the BGS, everything is down to chance.
A difference of X% influence between two factions in a system doesn't trigger a civil war; it triggers a chance for a civil war. As the civil war progresses, certain outcomes then define the chance for a winning side, or an election, or peace, or for the civil war to continue, or for a new civil war. All of this is continuously affected by other variables: what type of factions are involved? What is their presence in other systems? What is the overall health of the system in question?"
- CMDR Tronador, Elite: Dangerous Customer Support Wing
So, all you folks should probably know that you were all wrong, dead wrong, all along - and nothing is in any way predictable or understandable. The trusted tie-the -influence-levels-and-a-civil-war-should-break-out is all wrong. Everything is perfectly random. It's all just a roll of the dice. There is no player influenced BGS. It is not a game. It's all perfectly random. None of your hypotheses, calculations, and inferences mean anything at all. At any given time, nothing is a given. The "game" is a waste of time. Your efforts are wasted. Period.
Don't you all just feel foolish now. You can stop wasting your time now. You're welcome.
Or do you, like I, think this answer is pure bull"?
"Many players make the mistake of trying to play the BGS like a game. That's not its intention; the BGS exists to breathe life and introduce flow into the galaxy. Sometimes we receive messages from players distressed that their faction wasn't able to expand, or that a war wasn't triggered, or that they can't win control of a system. That's because there is no certainty in the BGS, everything is down to chance.
A difference of X% influence between two factions in a system doesn't trigger a civil war; it triggers a chance for a civil war. As the civil war progresses, certain outcomes then define the chance for a winning side, or an election, or peace, or for the civil war to continue, or for a new civil war. All of this is continuously affected by other variables: what type of factions are involved? What is their presence in other systems? What is the overall health of the system in question?"
- CMDR Tronador, Elite: Dangerous Customer Support Wing
So, all you folks should probably know that you were all wrong, dead wrong, all along - and nothing is in any way predictable or understandable. The trusted tie-the -influence-levels-and-a-civil-war-should-break-out is all wrong. Everything is perfectly random. It's all just a roll of the dice. There is no player influenced BGS. It is not a game. It's all perfectly random. None of your hypotheses, calculations, and inferences mean anything at all. At any given time, nothing is a given. The "game" is a waste of time. Your efforts are wasted. Period.
Don't you all just feel foolish now. You can stop wasting your time now. You're welcome.
Or do you, like I, think this answer is pure bull"?
Last edited:
you can search through this thread for the various times where support or Q&A was outright wrong about the BGS... it is a bit of a running joke for me
latest exampel here:
... with a correction from Q&A 1 hour 13 minutes later
anyway, besides the part were there are mistakes, i guess part of the problem is the "simulation" in background simulation. there have been several moments where i personally think, that even the guys programming the BGS didn't know what will happen if they change this or that .... that's why it is a simulation.
What concerns me is 2 things...
The person is new to customer service and has been told the BGS is random and/or
The devs have finally thrown their hands up and declared the BGS does not matter any more.
Pretty dark news either way.
This isn't necessarily untrue - it's just non-specific.
The natural assumption is that the chance values are 50-50. If there was a 99% chance of a conflict breaking out when two factions reached par influence levels, that vague (possibly deliberately misleading) statement would still be accurate.
Considering that it contains a couple of glaring errors to begin with, I am taking it as pure bull.
To be precise: A difference of X% influence between two factions in a system doesn't trigger a civil war; it triggers a chance for a civil war
Look, support person. If you don't know that conflicts get triggered by equalization (or being over 60% for coup levels, where it's a bit more fuzzy), and that such equalization (unless blocked elsewhere) is required and generates pending conflict states, you're lost. You have no reason to speak on the matter and should better say nothing. This is quite deterministic and non-random.
Last edited:
I think the point that he's trying to make is that the BGS is NOT a game in its own right. It's not meant to be "played", it's meant to be affected indirectly by CMDR activity. So you go off and do your activity, flying around the galaxy, and the BGS's rules dictate how that impacts the factions (and it does do that). That's why the BGS has always been kept a black box with no published manual. Because we're not supposed to "play" it, it's just meant to sit quietly in the background responding to what we all decide to do day-to-day.
I'm pretty sure the addition of player factions wasn't on their plan either.
It contradicts the "you're an insignificant CMDR" ethos of the game.
My guess is the demand for those factions came as a massive surprise to them.
I'm also pretty sure Power play was never expected to be "played" the way it is either, with people taking control of individual powers and organising the efforts. It looks to me like PP was also meant to be an incidental curiosity that happens in the background, while individual CMDRs just went on doing what they like to do. My take on the dev's intentions is that we were all expected to stay independent and not form organised groups. That seems to be backed up by the lack of any kind of in-game organisational tools.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we all want to form up and organise ourselves; and we all want to delve in to the detail to discover how things work. I think FD missed that completely in their planning. I hope they've worked it out now, but that'll be reflected in what happens in 6 months time or later (maybe).
I wouldn't read too much in to what this support guy is saying. A few poorly chosen words taken verbatim by ourselves and we jump to wild conclusions.
I'm pretty sure the addition of player factions wasn't on their plan either.
It contradicts the "you're an insignificant CMDR" ethos of the game.
My guess is the demand for those factions came as a massive surprise to them.
I'm also pretty sure Power play was never expected to be "played" the way it is either, with people taking control of individual powers and organising the efforts. It looks to me like PP was also meant to be an incidental curiosity that happens in the background, while individual CMDRs just went on doing what they like to do. My take on the dev's intentions is that we were all expected to stay independent and not form organised groups. That seems to be backed up by the lack of any kind of in-game organisational tools.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, we all want to form up and organise ourselves; and we all want to delve in to the detail to discover how things work. I think FD missed that completely in their planning. I hope they've worked it out now, but that'll be reflected in what happens in 6 months time or later (maybe).
I wouldn't read too much in to what this support guy is saying. A few poorly chosen words taken verbatim by ourselves and we jump to wild conclusions.
I think they just made something up, just to try and make a particular poster go away. This individual never pays any attention to facts and usually insults anyone who tries to help.
Unfortunately for the support people, they aren't allowed to use the ignore function.
Last edited:
No wonder, if they don't give players the tools to organize themselves and talk to each other in-game they will look for an alternative, and obviously whoever controls that alternative will have the most power to organize and make decisions. Sometimes I have the feeling the devs are still stuck in the 80s.
raeat
Banned
Well, that is the lamest defence I think I have ever read on any forum.
Congrats. This lowers the bar beneath the ground. Doesn't speak well for your grasp of the facts. The customer service response was quoted, not paraphrased. Quoted.
That is a fact. Deal with it.
Even STO White Knights are better than Limoncello Lizard!
But what would one expect? He obviously has some sort of hate on for me. I never dreamed I was so special to him.
And, of course, he ignored the content - as usual. What fluffy nonsense.
Of course, even if by some miracle the Lame Lizard is correct, then that would tell an interesting story on its own about customer service. I doubt it though. Sounds like clutching feebly at straws to me.
Last edited:
Yes I think your answer is pure bull.
I've given you two scenarios in which the situation you witnessed is perfectly possible.
You refuse to divulge the necessary details to allow us to make any determination which scenario was the most likely played out. If there was a glitch then by ruling out those two scenarios, THEN we might agree with your little conspiracy theory.
Quite frankly, I think you're avoiding telling us all the details about the factions in question because you don't know any of the details we're looking for. And instead of refusing to admitting to making a mistake, you're trying to cling to your narrative which is shoddy and full of holes as it is and hope you're loud enough to drown out reason and deduction.
Your ticket reveals the system isn't perfect.
Old news. You're late to the party.
I hammered on CS repeatedly until I got the information I wanted to figure out the glitch that was locking me in perpetual Civil War. It took them two tries to get it. Which isn't bad since it was two different people. It probably helped I was VERY SPECIFIC in what I was looking for because I had all the details needed.
Other then this one glitch, the BGS has worked EXACTLY to my expectations and reacted accordingly to very specific input. Everything happened exactly as I directed it. It responded to my efforts, and I adjusted accordingly.
The game will always display unintended behavior. Known the intended behavior helps.
So ether you missed the countdown and continued to push anyway, or you pushed a non-controlling faction higher then the controlling faction.
And until you give us more information into these two factions and their influence levels, you're nothing more then a troublemaker. And not the good kind ether.
So until you give us the information I'm after, nothing you have to say will hold any water. The dead horse you're trying to attack with "BGS doesn't work as expected" is already glue.
In what context?
Does it register what state it's currently in and you buy a ton of something and change the state accordingly?
Or do you mean does it change the market based on the state of the station's controlling faction?
Nothing so interesting - it just registers the standing of the station owner - no useful BGS numbers:
See how witty dying NPCs can be?
Last edited:
Question, maybe rhyming with whatever that support ticket was about
Our faction is at 65%, controls a station
Controlling faction 14% now, controls system and main station.
Do we need to get even higher to trigger war?
Our faction is at 65%, controls a station
Controlling faction 14% now, controls system and main station.
Do we need to get even higher to trigger war?
62-63% is the usual trigger, so you should be safe at 65%. Check the news bulletins to see if the other faction is in a blocking conflict somewhere else.
With the controling faction at 14%, you have to be careful they don't end up in conflict with another faction in the system by equalising. That will still be a conflict for control, with your faction twiddling their thumbs waiting for it to complete.
Last edited:
Thanks Limoncello! Great info as usual.