News Background Simulation - Update (01/03)

[Jmanis]

But now I don't get the correlation between reputation and influence. If it's not too complicated, can you explain the problem? I was only focused on influence changing when we did that and honestly, it was the first time I actively took part in this sort of actions, so there's still a lot to learn there...

OK, so when you win a CZ, you get three notifications:
- Influence increase with your the supported faction
- Rep increase with your supported faction
- Rep decrease with the opposition faction

I can guarantee that the rep decrease with the opposition faction does not happen, and will gladly go in and record a video to prove it. I've got some screenshots from the last time someone queried it also.
I can't can guarantee the rep increase with the supported faction doesn't happen... though my gut is telling me right now it doesn't. just went and verified it doesn't.
The influence effect is not observable, as influence doesn't change in a war, though Will mentions that (before the recent update) conditions for winning a day in a conflict were "The redirected influence changes" or words to that effect.

So, with one (or possibly two effects verified not to be working, there's a very good chance the expected effect on winning that day on the war by clearing a CZ may not be happening as well. But it's impossible to tell, imo, without verification from FD.

Unfortunately FD is coming from a position of lost trust in the system... things worked for a while... and then they provably weren't. Now they claim it's fixed, but with how busy the BGS is getting these days, it's now harder than ever to validate those claims. But if we know that, say, clearing a low-cz was worth 5 x 100k bonds submissions, we could have a crack at validating that.

FWIW, I'm heavily invested in tracking if/when the rep loss starts functioning, because when it does, FD have basically introduced a new bug, unless it can be confirmed CZ war-winning effects are working and are more effective than bonds

Personally, I would remove combat bonds as a means to influence the war entriely. It should all be done through missions, scenarios and combat zone wins. Combat bonds should just be a payment for services rendered whether they win or lose.

Yup... more and more, removing bonds as having any effect on the outcome of the war makes more and more sense.

- Each faction clears a low CZ. This would normally be a draw, but because a commander took 500k from the kitty of one faction, that same faction wins. That makes zero sense.
- Double-dipping on Massacre missions and Combat Bonds having an effect is why no missions have had effect since, well, forever. Massacre missions make sense as a directed, strategic reduction of an enemy force, as opposed to just going "here's some rando scalps I got!"

etc.

 

[Jmanis]

Thank you.

When you say, "The influence effect is not observable, as influence doesn't change in a war" it depends. Do you expect to see it immediately? When I started to help my power in this war it was one of the first questions I asked and was told it's been cleared on the next 'tick', something I can confirm for sure, though it never would give you a direct feedback about your own actions (unfortunately, something I personally don't like, as with most of these movements that come no sooner than with the next daily tick). You are literally fighting in the blue at first and then need patience. But I thought (think) this is the way it's meant to be and am confident that it does.

As to the influence/reputation correlation I had hoped to learn why this is relevant to you, as reputation as far as I'm aware has no influence on the outcome of these wars with the goal to gain control over the system you are fighting in.

Not sure where the point of confusion is, but you seem to be correlating or asserting things that I haven't said or suggested.

Yes, influence and reputation are entirely different things, and yes, reputation has nothing to do with winning wars. I'll try and start from scratch.

When you resolve (win) a conflict zone, there are three effects which are displayed:
1. Reputation increase with the supported faction
2. Reputation decrease with the opposed faction
3. Influence increase with the supported faction.

I can prove effects 1 and 2 *do not* happen, i.e they are broken. The 3rd effect (the influence change) cannot be directly observed, and I'll come back to that statement in a sec. Either way, if two of the three effects of resolving a conflict zone are provably broken, then there's a good chance the 3rd probably is too. For example, if you ran a mission which offered Credits, Reputation and Influence, and when you hand the mission in, you didn't get any Credits or Reputation, it's highly probable[1] the influence effect wouldn't have happened either.

Now, when I say the 3rd effect (the influence change) can't be directly observed, I need to pre-load some things.
1. Bottom line, influence *does not* change during a war. The only influence change that occurs during a war is the +/-4% for the winner and loser at it's conclusion. Will's statement confirms this.
2. Influence effects pre-patch were redirected to a bucket... so essentially whoever would've had the larger net influence change under pre-3.3 mechanics would "win the day" and score a point in the "war progress" under the new mechanics. Now, the new mechanics don't use influence (at least, that's what Wills statement suggests).

Now, the update says that "it uses a completely separate calculation" or words to that effect.

Please note: The below numbers etc. are hypothetical, and just to illustrate possible observations.

In the old mechanics where Influence determined the winner, you could observe the effects.
- Hand in 100k combat bonds, at 5% start influence, gain 1% influence
- Hand in 2 x 100k combat bond transactions at 5% start influence, gain 2% influence
- Hand in 4 x 400k combat bond transactions at a 60% start influence, gain 2% influence

From here you can dissect that to determine the influence values of combat bonds and other actions easily enough, i.e the effects are observable. Moreover, if you then went:
- Hand in 1 x 100k combat bond at 5% start influence, gain 10% influence
... and you can't repeat that, instead getting the previously-mentioned 1% if you repeat, you know immediately that someone else must have been interfering in that system. The whole thing is opaque and observable.

Now, you can't, because:
- Complete 1 low CZ unopposed, gain 1 point on the war progress bar
- Complete 5 low CZs unopposed, gain 1 point on the war progress bar
- Complete 50 high CZs opposed by minor resistance, gain 1 point on the war progress bar

You cannot easily dissect those things and determine their comparative values. There are ways, but A) it's flipping difficult, and would take months of effort for even a large margin of error, and B) You simply can't tell if there's opposition, because the traffic reports are not representative.

Now, resolving a CZ is broken down into 2 (3 optional) sub-tasks:
1. Destroy Enemy Ships
2. Finish the CZ
3. (optional) hand in bonds

You can't separate the possibility that destroying ships is what influences the war outcome, rather than resolving the CZ itself. Bonds are a separate matter entirely, but at least you can control that yourself. Take the following test results:
1. You run a High CZ for one side, and a Medium CZ for the other side. You don't hand in any bonds. The side you ran the high CZ for wins that day.
2. You run a High CZ for one side, and a Medium CZ for the other side. You hand in bonds only for the Med CZ side. The Med CZ side wins that day.
3. You run a Medium CZ for both sides, and hand in 600k bonds for one side and 400k for the other. The side who got 400k bonds wins that day.
4. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side. High CZ side wins
5. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side. 4 missions side wins.

What can you determine from that? The answer is absolutely nothing, everything is transparent and unobservable. It's like a tennis match where you only get the results of the Games and Sets, e.g 6-4, 2-6, 7-6. You only know how many games were won, not whether the games were won 40-0 or went down to deuce every game.

But if I changed it to:
1. You run a High CZ for one side, and a medium CZ for the other side. You don't hand in any bonds. High CZ side got gained 4 points for that day, Medium CZ side got 2 points for that day.
2. You run a High CZ for one side, and a medium CZ for the other side. You hand in bonds for the medium CZ side. High CZ side got 4 points, medium CZ side gained 6 points.
3. You run a Medium CZ for both sides, and hand in 400k in bonds for one side and 600k bonds for the other. 600k bonds got 3 points, 400k bonds side got 8 points.
4. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side + bonds. High CZ side gets 5 points, 4 mission side gets 0 points
5. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side. High CZ side gets 5 points, 4 mission side gets 6 points

There's a massive amount of information in there. You can start to form theories like:
- A medium CZ gives 2 points, a high cz gets 4 points, which would be consistent with FD's historical number-crunching
- A low CZ probably gives 1 point, but you'd need to test. Likewise it looks like handing in a set of bonds may give 1 point.
- In 2. It's likely someone ran a medium CZ against you.
- In 3. it makes it look like Bonds are counted in transactions rather than value, even though someone interfered with another CZ.
- In 4. and 5. it's a smoking barrel that missions have no effect. It's likely someone external just ran two medium CZs plus bonds

This is what I mean by the effects of completing a CZ are unobservable; they're totally transparent to the player. Yes, I can go run a CZ, and after the tick my side will have a point, but why? Why did they get the point? Was it the CZ I ran? Was it the bonds I handed in? Was it the ships I killed? Was it none of the above, and some other player's action? Am I better to run two medium CZs, then hand in the bonds, or run a CZ and hand in the bonds between each? I can't tell. And that's where clarity is needed.

Genuinely, right now I'm involved in a close-fought war. I have about 15 Wartime Missions queued up (for surface scans, powerplant strikes etc.). In the time it takes me to do all those missions, I could do 3 High CZs, or 8 Medium CZs. When I started, I did a mix of missions and CZs and got up that day. I did the same thing the next two days and lost both days. I then did nothing but Medium CZs and bonds and won the next day. I'm clearly being opposed, so what won that day for me?
- Resolving the CZs? As mentioned the rep effects are broken, so it's possible this didn't win it for me
- The bonds I handed in?
- Do missions have any effect at all?

I'll never know because of the transparency.

[1] Without getting into lengthy discussion about common software design templates/execution flow, reverse engineering and probability mechanics.

 

[Jmanis]

Sorry but that's a very confusing read. Not just because I'm no native reader but also cause you seem to use the word "transparency" in the opposite way than it possibly would make sense to me. "Opaqueness" would the word I would expect here instead and from the context.

Other than that and since I'm still a beginner in system manipulation, it probably would be easier to understand for me if some of the more experienced players would drop into this conversation where I could silently listen then and try to extract my conclusions.

Yeah... if you're a non-native speaker I can see why it might be confusing. Your definition of Transparent and Opaque is one correct interpretation, but there's an equally valid interpretation of those terms that is the exact opposite of your definition.

Your definition might get used in the context of something like "Transparent Business Practices", where you can look in and see how a business is making money, see where they're paying money to etc... as opposed Opaque, a black box, where you have no idea of the internal workings, only money goes in, and money goes out.

However, using the other definition, something which is transparent is invisible/intangible, like a transparent pane of glass or an invisible force-field. Sound waves are transparent; (without tools) we can't see how they reach our ears... they just do. But if they were opaque to the naked eye (i.e visible, colourful), you'd have a much better understanding as you'd be able to actually see where they're going, how they're moving etc.. This is the definition I use, as the BGS is designed by FD to be transparent to the players... that is, we aren't meant to understand how the BGS works... we just run missions (i.e make noise), and see results (i.e hear it).

Hope that helps.

PS. I've been doing the BGS since day dot, so happy to keep trying to explain things if you want?

 

[Kaocraft]

Sorry but that's a very confusing read. Not just because I'm no native reader but also cause you seem to use the word "transparency" in the opposite way than it possibly would make sense to me. "Opaqueness" would the word I would expect here instead and from the context.

Other than that and since I'm still a beginner in system manipulation, it probably would be easier to understand for me if some of the more experienced players would drop into this conversation where I could silently listen then and try to extract my conclusions.

FWIW if it makes you feel any better I’m a native English speaker and I’ve never seen anyone use “transparent” and “opaque” in the way he has; it’s the exact opposite of every example I have ever seen. If he had used a term like “invisible” instead of “transparent” then it probably would have made more sense to me too.

 

[Jmanis]

FWIW if it makes you feel any better I’m a native English speaker and I’ve never seen anyone use “transparent” and “opaque” in the way he has; it’s the exact opposite of every example I have ever seen. If he had used a term like “invisible” instead of “transparent” then it probably would have made more sense to me too.

Getting off topic... but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(human–computer_interaction)

This being somewhat bread-and-butter for my employment, it's terminology I use frequently. Although that page doesn't go into it, "Opacity" refers to observable effects.

Just hoping that clears up my post some more. Old BGS saw that "Combat actions" will win wars. Under the new BGS, will explicitly says that's still the case, but the plumbing has changed. In that regard, those systems are transparent to us, the "end user".

Perhaps it's use like that is less common than I realise.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Thanks for the update Will.

Now can we also have longer breaks in between Expansion state, please? After expanding into a new system for couple of days, my PMF is pending Expansion again.

The moment you go pending Expansion you need to work for any other MF in the System to make them gain % and thus take away from your own to get it below 75% again (Expansion threshold). If you don't then currently you'll be expanding without end, since with 3.0 the Expansion tax (aka slow % loss per day during live phase) has been removed (either by accident or otherwise).

Since the States of a (P)MF are System only nowadays it isn't as problematic as in the past though. You can simply opt not to care for the System you went to and leave it to its own devices.

 

[CC | Zefninja]

Since the update, influence drops despite efforts have actually got worse from what we have seen. Something is completely amiss now.

 

[Aasir Omondi]

You can't separate the possibility that destroying ships is what influences the war outcome, rather than resolving the CZ itself. Bonds are a separate matter entirely, but at least you can control that yourself. Take the following test results:
1. You run a High CZ for one side, and a Medium CZ for the other side. You don't hand in any bonds. The side you ran the high CZ for wins that day.
2. You run a High CZ for one side, and a Medium CZ for the other side. You hand in bonds only for the Med CZ side. The Med CZ side wins that day.
3. You run a Medium CZ for both sides, and hand in 600k bonds for one side and 400k for the other. The side who got 400k bonds wins that day.
4. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side. High CZ side wins
5. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side. 4 missions side wins.

Have you tested this since Friday's backend patch to see if this is still the case? I can't do much testing at the moment because I'm at the end of two wars but will be in another soon enough and can start testing some of this myself. But what you're essentially saying is that HCZ > MCZ > LCZ? And despite the intensity, if one side turns in bonds and the other doesn't, the bond side wins? I'm also getting that missions are still variable and could go either way even if the number of missions turned in were identical. However, in your example, you neglect mission rewards (say, INF+ vs INF+++). Do you not include that because the payouts don't matter (no INF bucket anymore)?

People in the BGS Discord have told me that intensity doesn't matter; it's there to keep things interesting and more challenging. Winning HCZ moves the marker in conflict status just the same as a LCZ or MCZ. That seems accurate from my own observations.

But if I changed it to:
1. You run a High CZ for one side, and a medium CZ for the other side. You don't hand in any bonds. High CZ side got gained 4 points for that day, Medium CZ side got 2 points for that day.
2. You run a High CZ for one side, and a medium CZ for the other side. You hand in bonds for the medium CZ side. High CZ side got 4 points, medium CZ side gained 6 points.
3. You run a Medium CZ for both sides, and hand in 400k in bonds for one side and 600k bonds for the other. 600k bonds got 3 points, 400k bonds side got 8 points.
4. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side + bonds. High CZ side gets 5 points, 4 mission side gets 0 points
5. I run 4 missions for one side, and a high CZ for the other side. High CZ side gets 5 points, 4 mission side gets 6 points

I'm curious to know how you're coming up with these points if a war effort is only really measured by the lateral movement of the conflict status marker. I'm not challenging your information, I'm just trying to learn more. It also looks as if there's a soft cap on bonds of 400k and after that it delves into the excessive and doesn't really help.

Also, I haven't personally observed any penalties for fleeing a CZ. If this is the case, then it would prove faster to jump in, gather around 400k bonds, jump out and turn them in, call it a day. This is, of course, assuming no player opposition and just a PMF vs NPC MF.

 

[CC | Zefninja]

Looks like there may be a cap now on influence contribution. If you do to much for yr faction it counts against you negatively. Absolutely bizarre.

 

[Aasir Omondi]

Also, the general difficulty can grossly vary in any type of CZ and either seems pretty much random or is triggered by actual human opposition, but how could we ever possibly know for sure?

Indeed. I've soloed an HCZ without firing a single cell bank or losing more than a ribbon in shields, then popped over to a neighboring LCZ and lost 3 fighters and had to fire multiple cell banks to keep my shields up. From my personal experiences, the lows and highs can vary extraordinarily in difficulty when soloing them, but MCZ remains fairly consistently challenging to solo because of those Spec Ops ships. However, once I have a friend with a healing beam, they're all easy.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Looks like there may be a cap now on influence contribution. If you do to much for yr faction it counts against you negatively. Absolutely bizarre.

Probably they implemented something like a Bucket overflow feature to prevent things to be too one-sided like in the old BGS. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions they say. Try to limit your daily INF infusion to 40-50 total per 24h / CMDR. Works in our region of space at least.

 

[Jmanis]

Have you tested this since Friday's backend patch to see if this is still the case? I can't do much testing at the moment because I'm at the end of two wars but will be in another soon enough and can start testing some of this myself. But what you're essentially saying is that HCZ > MCZ > LCZ? And despite the intensity, if one side turns in bonds and the other doesn't, the bond side wins? I'm also getting that missions are still variable and could go either way even if the number of missions turned in were identical. However, in your example, you neglect mission rewards (say, INF+ vs INF+++). Do you not include that because the payouts don't matter (no INF bucket anymore)?

People in the BGS Discord have told me that intensity doesn't matter; it's there to keep things interesting and more challenging. Winning HCZ moves the marker in conflict status just the same as a LCZ or MCZ. That seems accurate from my own observations.



I'm curious to know how you're coming up with these points if a war effort is only really measured by the lateral movement of the conflict status marker. I'm not challenging your information, I'm just trying to learn more. It also looks as if there's a soft cap on bonds of 400k and after that it delves into the excessive and doesn't really help.

Also, I haven't personally observed any penalties for fleeing a CZ. If this is the case, then it would prove faster to jump in, gather around 400k bonds, jump out and turn them in, call it a day. This is, of course, assuming no player opposition and just a PMF vs NPC MF.

Sorry... I should probably add a note that those are hypothetical things... used to demonstrate the process of working these things out.

I was trying to demonstrate how, under the old system where things could be measured by their influence effects fairly easily, there's no such possibility under the old mechanics. It *is* possible, but it would require literal months of effort and countless amounts of statistically significant sample bodies where you could (somehow) absolutely guarantee no external interference (that's the impossible bit)

 

[CC | Zefninja]

Probably they implemented something like a Bucket overflow feature to prevent things to be too one-sided like in the old BGS. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions they say. Try to limit your daily INF infusion to 40-50 total per 24h / CMDR. Works in our region of space at least.

Hi we are finding anything over 10-15 per system is garnering negatives post tick

 

[Schlack]

@FDEV

other notes from recent post "fix" experience.

• Explo data has no discernible influence effect.
• Mission effects appear to be about 10% of pre-fix inf values - currently almost totally useless. this on top of limited availability essentially means you can do sod all with certain factions.
• We may have had one war where CZs gave effects to enemy faction (after initially working) - traffic cant be discounted
• Influence cap is awful - this fix has served to make the grind even grindier
• we have seen reports of end conflict inf results being different from +/-4

We have been careful not to do too much in any one system avoiding potential negative results, but if the above reports of negative hits are accurate it is highly suggestive that certain BGS problems have not yet been properly diagnosed let alone fixed.

Most cases reported - where you had performed a lot of positive influence actions to a given faction, but saw minimal increases or even a decrease: this is due to the way the system distributes influence and has to keep everything at 100% maximum (this can be lower when some factions in the system are in a conflict).

At the current time, if you are trying to support a faction in a system, we would recommend that you try not add too many positive influence inputs to other factions that system, especially if they have relatively low influence.

I don't want to be too harsh considering the effort that has been put in, but blaming the players is not a good look. Most BGS players, as a matter of course, do not accidentally fight for the wrong side, run missions for the wrong factions or otherwise actively work against their own interest. There is either something fundamentally wrong with the equations or inf results are being attributed to the wrong factions. There does not seem to be a recognition of this issue.

 

[Kaocraft]

Personally, I would remove combat bonds as a means to influence the war entriely. It should all be done through missions, scenarios and combat zone wins. Combat bonds should just be a payment for services rendered whether they win or lose.

I'd definitely be OK with this. Likewise perhaps bounty vouchers should just be payment and it would be the actual killing of ships that moves the needle?

 

[Aasir Omondi]

But then you need to assure that losing a battle wouldn't count towards the outcoming of a war (other than just losing time). Is it so? Otherwise any combat bond hunter would potentially distort the outcome of wars, as he wouldn't care if losing or not.

No, what's being said is that bonds and bounties should no longer count toward war success/fail. Instead, they act as payment for services rendered—unrelated to the conflict itself. I agree with both posters in this regard. To add to their sentiments, I think bonds and bounties should certainly contribute to security states and, potentially, happiness. For instance, turning in either would increase your own faction happiness and lower the happiness of whichever faction was losing ships. Unfortunately, happiness is perfectly useless at the moment; however, FDEV did state that their intention by introducing it was to contribute to a wide array of states, especially expansion. If your INF is high but happiness low, you shouldn't expand into a new system. FDEV is certainly on the right track; they just need to fix what is broken in this regard. Once they fix this broken aspect, things should become even more interesting and even strategic.

That said, losing a battle in a Conflict Zone should absolutely count one way or another. This makes things more realistic. Wars are won via a series of successful engagements, not because a group of contractors were paid for delivering scalps. I'm not saying wars should only be won or lost within Conflict Zones, just that bonds and bounties don't really make much sense as contributing factors. Trade and trade missions should also be a factor, because without supplies, no one can fight. An ideal [negative effect] combat mission associated with trade would be to destroy trade ships of the opposing faction, essentially cutting off supply chains. A [positive effect] mission would be along the lines of delivering military commodities, medicines (for wounded), technology commodities (ship repairs), food, etc. in favor of your faction.

I know we're talking about a space game here, but this isn't rocket science.

 

[Aasir Omondi]

I understand what you're saying and can appreciate your concern here. That just means that factions have to take into account those only entering CZs for bonds (the credits are terrible, so I don't see why anyone would make such an effort), but that is a worry for large factions, not the majority of factions. That said, there is no penalty for leaving a CZ before the battle ends (as far as I can see or anyone else I've spoken to on the subject), so someone farming bonds can just as easily wake out before the battle is lost. Battles are only recorded as won or lost if a player is within the CZ at the time; otherwise, it is simply a draw. NPC factions tread water against one another; there's no random win vs lose in the code—all conflicts are resolved by players, otherwise they end in stalemates.

Disclaimer: mileage may vary. Just reporting my own observations.

 

[Aasir Omondi]

Thanks, that's the kind of feedback I was hoping for. Only wished there would be some official confirmation from the devs, especially in light of the current bugginess of CZs. Fortunately no frequent occurrence, but I've met battles that I won with the clear message at the end, yet the whole screen was filled with red blobs and zero green. Or battles that I entered and had to leave after less than 30 seconds cause all allied ships had vanished. These things are not all too trustworthy...

You said before that you're new to Conflict Zones? Maybe I'm remembering you as a different poster in this thread or I'm merging you with someone else. Anyhow, what you're describing is manageable because there are minor flaws related to NPC reactions on both sides.

Allow me to reply per issue:

I've met battles that I won with the clear message at the end, yet the whole screen was filled with red blobs and zero green.

I get this too, but I tend to launch aggressive fighters from my ship, and sometimes they attack the wrong person. Your allies can become unfriendly really fast. Granted, I think you said before that you don't deploy SLF, so I know this particular anecdote doesn't apply to you. though there could be some overlap. Maybe you fired on a friendly on accident? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here because friendlies don't turn into enemies randomly. If it happens sometimes, report as a bug. If it happens all the time, there's likely something else at work you might be overlooking. I'm not trying to undermine your experience, just trying to calculate a potential cause to your issue.

Or battles that I entered and had to leave after less than 30 seconds cause all allied ships had vanished.

If this happens more than once, you need to file a bug report. This should not at all happen. Conflict Zones are not broken and they haven't been for some time (patched 4-6 weeks ago, I believe), so if you;'re experiencing stuff like this, then there's a bug somewhere. Please, please REPORT it.

Conflict Zones are much more reliable than they were in December and early January, and it's uncommon that they're broken. It still happens, but it's rare that I enter a CZ and ships don't spawn or something else completely buggered happens. The most recent issues relate to wins either not counting or counting for the wrong faction (supposedly fixed but I never experienced the issue). Anyhow, good luck to you, and if you're interested in playing with others, send me a private message and I'll introduce you to my faction. We'll yank you out of Solo play and gladly accept your endeavors. We play BGS and have story and so on. Play the way you want to play. Sometimes, though, playing with others makes the pain subside when we feel it as a collective.

 

[Riverside]

To provide some anecdotal evidence I have now won two wars since the changes posted in the OP.

The first war was ongoing (3-0 to me uncontested) and when the rules were updated I was declared victor the following day (ie my actions shortened the war).

The second war ended on 3-1 with only the first day (where I was still busy with the other one) lost to me. So IME it's first past the post to 3 days & the war ends.

In every CZ instance I ran it to completion (victory) then returned to the station to cash in around 250kCr in bonds, then returned to the fight about 2-3 times per day. In most cases they were low CZs (closer to the station) but some were medium. I haven't seen a high CZ spawn for either war. Both systems are low population, low traffic.


I have an ongoing (contested) election too and the status so far is 2-0 to me, I should win it tomorrow afternoon (assuming I win the day).

ymmv.

 

[Aasir Omondi]

I always end up realizing that I have a lot more fun playing Solo. But thanks for your friendly offer. I'm a incorrigible hermit I'm afraid.

Fair enough. Consider it an open invitation if you change your mind. We're quite small (you have more fingers and toes than we have members at the moment), if that helps. But hey, you do you, play how you want to play to maximize your enjoyment. Just so you know, there's a BGS discord server that's great for sharing weird experiences and getting guidance. Just search for EDBGS.