News Background Simulation - Update (01/03)

Starting Conflict
  • To reduce the number of Conflicts in the galaxy and to make them more meaningful, Conflicts will now only be triggered during invasions or when one or both factions control an asset that's at risk by that Conflict.
I have a hard time to wrap my head around this. To me it reads like "to start a conflict you already need to have a conflict" or how else could assets be at risk by any (not yet?) existing conflicts? Which obviously would be nonsense. What am I not getting here, anyone cares to give me a hand?
 
Thanks for the update - great to see a bit more clarity when you change the BGS, now we know what to look out for.

Bit disappointed you removed some of the hidden mechanics before you told us they existed (specifically bonus war days). I know some had guessed they existed, it would have been great if you could have confirmed the mechanic so we could have had a more well-informed discussion. (many people go around saying things are broken in this game when they just don't understand the mechanics - and it's difficult to correct people when the mechanism has been kept secret).
 
I would also like to have the mission generator fixed.
I'm getting missions in one system that harm the war progress of the same faction in another system...
 
Thanks for the information and the fixes.
Looking forward to all this info being available ingame !

Could we have the News Board tell us how long a conflict is planed for and has been running ?
And could we have similar information in the Squadron window for the faction ?
 
Last edited:
I have a hard time to wrap my head around this. To me it reads like "to start a conflict you already need to have a conflict" or how else could assets be at risk by any (not yet?) existing conflicts? Which obviously would be nonsense. What am I not getting here, anyone cares to give me a hand?
When two factions are in a conflict, if they own anything in the system (stations, planetary bases, planetary settlements or - as of 3.3 - installations: collectively, assets), then they stake this on winning the conflict.

This change means that if neither faction has anything to stake, the conflict won't start.

So, sample system:
Faction A owns three stations and a planetary base
Faction B owns a station
Faction C owns an installation
Factions D, E and F own nothing.

This change means that conflicts between D, E and F are now impossible - while until today they were probably the most common sort of conflict! Faction D can still attack faction B and attempt to take its station, however, despite not having anything itself, because faction B does have assets.

The slight exception mentioned in the original post is for "invasion" - this a special type of conflict caused by an expansion to a "full" system, and in this case both factions are putting their continued presence in the system at stake, so don't need an asset to fight over.
 
...
The slight exception mentioned in the original post is for "invasion" - this a special type of conflict caused by an expansion to a "full" system, and in this case both factions are putting their continued presence in the system at stake, so don't need an asset to fight over.
Very good, this helps a lot. Just a last one for now: What do you mean by a "full" system?
 
This is another buff to mission running player groups and another massive nurf to combat orientated player groups.

Leaving a blanket ±4% that does not take into account the system size is not good. Every other BGS action takes into account the size of the system.
1 mission in a 50k system = +4%
1 mission in a 25bil system = +0.01%

A total victory in a 50k or 25bil = 4%. That is inconsistency and inconsistency is bad.
 
There is an upper limit to how many factions can be in one system. I think it's seven.
Yep - seven is the soft limit. Below 7, you can expand normally to the system. At 7, you can only expand to the system by invasion [1]. Above 7, untested so far.
In almost all cases there'll be a suitable system below 7 in range, so it's not come up much so far, but it provides a useful safety valve against systems becoming too static.

[1] My Pre-3.3 summary is at https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/424895-Expansions-BGS-Guide-Best-Current-Thinking?p=6664276&viewfull=1#post6664276 - the rules of invasion itself haven't changed significantly since then, but the changes to how conflicts work have made them much easier to get.
 
"Winning Conflict Zone objectives is the most obvious way to help win a war." - Does this imply CZ wins will have more of an effect than combat bonds currently do?
 
Last edited:
All it takes is consistent communication like the past few days regarding mechanics & regardless of issues, the player base will be far more understanding. We do love this game.

Much appreciation.

Thanks Will.
 
I am very concerned that this change will heavily penalize groups that have worked to earn as many assets as possible — a challenging and, perhaps until now, a strategically valuable objective. Settlements and installations will be factors, but it is my hope that we do not find that the net result of this change is to allow factions at the bottom end of a system to move directly for control with no roadblocks.
Oooooh, good point. This is defeinitely concerning.


As has already been discussed on the BGS forum, we need better tools to help us plan around these changes. Hunting through planetary maps to find the owner of settlements is tedious. There's got to be a better way.
I think the easiest solution would be to simply add it to local reports on each faction. We can see which assets are threatened, so why not just add a list at the bottom of each faction report the assets said faction owns?
 
Thanks, I just have one thing to ask.

Can weapons trading, troop/rebels transport, and related activities contribute to conflicts somehow to wars and civil wars?

Warriors win battles, logistics wins wars!
 
...
"[/B]Winning Conflict Zone objectives is the most obvious way to help win a war." - If it's the most "obvious", why are combat bonds still more effective?
I've discussed this point with the leaders of my PP group who have a lot more experience with system manipulation than me and according to them you are poking on outdated information (as a lot of people tend to do in this forum by just repeating what others have said somewhere some time ago). Should be fixed by now. Otherwise, prove me wrong.
 
Thanks Will,

I can't give a more in-depth reply right now, but feel the following points are very relevant:

  • Previously, the day's score was determined by diverting faction influence inputs (subject to the usual rules of combat actions affecting War and Civil War and non-combat actions affecting Elections). However, we've now changed faction Conflict scores to be driven by their own set of equations.
Under the old BGS system, faction influence inputs (subject to the usual rules of combat actions...), in the case of war and civil war this was just one thing.

Combat Bonds.

I think it's incredibly important given the new Conflict Zones and the knowledge of people being able to "game" the submission of combat bonds to provide some explicit clarity around the following:
- Does resolving a conflict zone give a proportionate boost to winning the war? That quote suggests actually winning the conflict zone, until recently, had no effect. Resolving a CZ should be substantially more effective than handing in bonds.
- Do missions count for winning the war? Historically, they have not, but they really should. This also creates the argument that Combat Bonds should have *no* effect for winning a war (rather, winning conflict zones and doing missions should)
- Do USS scenarios count for winning a war? Given that, on last check, effects didn't seem to be applied for resolving a conflict zone (such as reduced/increased reputation with the relevant faction), my gut tells me not (likewise for resolving CZs)

And secondly, on this part:

  • We've already made a several changes for how negative actions apply negative economic and security effects, and also how quickly the EP & SP bars drain back towards the centre. We expect to make further tweaks once we've analysed the results of this set of changes.
I'm not a fan of the drain away, but I guess I don't have stats to assess that. But I'll throw this one here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/472325-Time-to-buff-antagonistic-PvE?p=7346033&viewfull=1#post7346033

Bottom line: Drain-aways are just a band-aid solution for the fact that activities which can cause negative states are not prevalent enough, nor incentivised enough.
 
Last edited:
I think it's incredibly important given the new Conflict Zones and the knowledge of people being able to "game" the submission of combat bonds to provide some explicit clarity around the following:

- Does resolving a conflict zone give a proportionate boost to winning the war? That quote suggests actually winning the conflict zone, until recently, had no effect. Resolving a CZ should be substantially more effective than handing in bonds.
Not sure where you got this opinion from or how old the information your statement is based on actually still is. Some people from my PP group who have a deep knowledge and long experience with reverse engineering, didn't even bother to hand in combat bonds anymore and yet are effectively winning wars by solving combat zones.

I do agree though that an official word from the devs about the issue would go a long way.

... and not to say CZs are now bug free - far from it! I've ran into a few rare bugs or inconsistencies just recently, though very hard to report as it's almost impossible to reproduce them.
 
Last edited:
Further on the topic of clarifying Conflict Zone impacts, what is the impact of leaving a Conflict Zone in progress? Does this count as a loss (or partial loss) for the player's pledged faction? Is there an effect if no pledge has taken place?

This concern is exacerbated by the ongoing issue with CZ's that move in normal space if they spawn near some bodies, effectively forcing an abandoned CZ as they cannot be completed.
 
Its what I would like to see. I don't like that I can be allied with my enemy or rival. There should be rival factions and whenever you do a job for you faction you lose rep with the rival. It could really spice things up a bit if they become hostile and start sending out assasins after you.
Totally agree with you guys!
 
I am very new to this player faction play and before the changes today we a small group of players are trying to understand this this is our 3rd war.

The last war we did on day 1 we did very little CZ due to time zones and etc and one that day the other 4 days we hit CZ hard as much as we could handed in our bond and such only to loose the 4 days in a row. S the last 3 days of the war we did zero combat and won each day ( sounds strange to us and i hope you).

On all the CZ we did we won each time so how come the side that lost 20 CZ win on the day again don't make sense to me

The new war which started on thursday this week and we focused on just trade till the ticker of today and you hit us with NEW UPDATE. We lost so we have now done some combat and hope to be doing more before the ticker kicks in on the next day to find out how well we done.

Why not have a 2 bars on the screen where we can all see that days progress of who is winning that days war at least for me i would be able to Visualized my progress on that days war we have right now and may be in the future of Elite.

Because right now players say do less combat and trade to win and other say do more combat and win as for the bonds systems my self i would like to gone as the pay on them is not much if we have to keep handing them in after every fight we do take us away from the long fights we could be having.

I think that a more Visualized scale for that days ticker should be more in plain sight easy to read at least for me it way better to under stand than having to read forum posts saying this and that to win as for me right now their is no Clear to win u need to do this and do loose you need to do this.

So why not have the Visualized bars for us to easily understand.

Sorry if it feels i not read the post by Wil i just think its all over too complicated than it should be.

Sorry if doesn't make sense but i suffer from dyslexia to reading is not my strong point hence why i just like to to be made most simplified for players like my self
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom