What is the downside of a faction being in Outbreak?
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
What about "should be" made you think it is? I said it should NOT be in waste. I never said it is not. The fact it causes outbreak with a text "sterile" in its description is simply moronic.
- - - Updated - - -
Station production crashes down. Mission-wise it is useful.
Maybe its like woodchip. Sterile in itself, but highly combustable in the right conditions and therefore dangerous but a simple waste product also usable in other circumstances.
Last edited:
We talk about fertilizer... biowaste... human feces. If those were sterilized, it can hardly cause an outbreak.
Maybe the mission ones aint sterile
Bioweapons Anno 1505? It would be funny if anarchist "deliveries" always were opposite though.
I misread, sorry. But - biowaste IS waste. Why should it ever be amongst foods? I don't know many people who eat poop, even though some are rumored
- - - Updated - - -
Well, even if it is sterile at delivery, it sure does not remain so for long once is "deployed". Insects and parasites will jump onto it like flies to... well
Why should it ever be amongst foods? I don't know many people who eat poop, even though some are rumored
The area wouldn't matter if it wasn't blatantly obvious FD uses the ingame item groups to easily apply effects to missions, just checking back against this premade information.
Chemicals? Boom
Machinery? Boom
Technology? Boom
Drugs? Bust
Food? Anti-Famine (even Tea!)
Medicine? Anti-Outbreak
Waste? Outbreak (even fertilizer)
Weapons? Civil Unrest (if open market) / Anti-Unrest (if security delivery)
So if you would put anything into food, even "hot air" they could live pretty well from you just delivering hot air...
Well, this is "good enough for the job". It's still a game, not an academic simulator after all.
Actually it's an assumption by the community that it means feces. It's just more humorous to think of it as poo.
Biowaste is actually short for biodegradable waste, which means it could just as easily be those said Woodchips. It could also be food waste, in which case it would sit in your food section too! But only at the receiving station of course. At the giving station, it's still waste.
I am not getting disillusioned with the BGS, I just like a bit more info. Figuring out the changes is part of the fun after each patch, and operating in a certain amount of uncertainty is part of the fun, too, and always been an element.
What is annoying is that changes have been undocumented (which is not so new), and a lot more variables added (through passenger missions, destination inf and state effects, etc.), while it appears that the conflict calculation is different, too. For us, dealing with high traffic, the impact of skimmer missions and increased BH in the area by themselves are making things more unmanageable than the new 'rules', I suspect.
pre 1.6: see the chart I posted a few pages back now (yesterday): we're beyond 1.4 levels, even...
Part of the problem is that too many variables and imbalance feed into the BGS, and that balance obviously is out of whack. Now that passenger missions have been nerfed (or have they been changed again?) this will change behavior again, and maybe they themselves are just monitoring it to see what's going on. They seem to always want to see it play out first (same as in the couple of weeks of reconfiguration of systems once the retreat mechanism came in with 2.1)...
It is virtually impossible to test BGS elements during Beta. No time, and too many changes anyway, and the reality is that the subset of players that actively play the BGS is tiny. Moreover, they always seem nervous to have the BGS too much in the foreground, which probably means if it doesn't lead to too many problems, they'd rather see it play itself out.
Having said that, I understand the frustration. Our strategic planning collective often finds themselves.... rather surprised by tick results...
More info, please.... FDev....?
Last edited:
Yeah, you always think they are a bit ashamed of the BGS. Every little piece of poo can be read via API... but influence levels and factions? Naaaaa.....
- Assassination, Massacre, Piracy, Rescue missions updated to have target faction state effects
It doesn't mention that it also applies "negative" influence now. It also didn't mention that negative influence has no cap. Combined with -inf passengers and a new height in BM abuse, this is a BGS disaster.
It doesn't mention that it also applies "negative" influence now. It also didn't mention that negative influence has no cap. Combined with -inf passengers and a new height in BM abuse, this is a BGS disaster.
I should have been clearer. I was talking about the unannounced changes such as the factionwide state effects (2.1) and the reversion to leeching inf from all factions during conflict.
They love slipping in new stuff unnaounced that often has major consequences. To do that while bringing in a heap of other changes...
Last edited:
The problem is "no cap", if it turns out to be true. Strategically speaking, there should be methods to negatively affect factions.
Were these intended changes though?
I agree. Thus I would propose for FD to cap the negative effect per day at 10%. That would mean a system that is undermined AND supported 100% at the same time will get stagnation at 50%. As the max growth there would be 10%.
Any cap higher than 10% would give the balance to the griefers. But also anything below 5% would give too much power to the defender. I think the sweetpoint is somewhere in the middle of 5-10% for the negative cap.
And the lack of cap is no question Sentenza. I can give you over 20 examples of drops over 50% of a preday influence level and margins far past 30%.
Without war state... and crime.
Last edited:
I wonder if when developing the next major upgrade they are using the old code of the previous iteration and not the code of the current, ie. 2.3 in development using 2.1 code.
So when 2.3 comes out, it will be all change again and back to where we were reasonably happy with things. Certainly from a consistency point of view.
So when 2.3 comes out, it will be all change again and back to where we were reasonably happy with things. Certainly from a consistency point of view.