News Background Simulation - Update (01/03)

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.
 
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.
I'm doing them all in my gamballed FDL (as I said) and don't use SCBs on principle. Only exception was in the beginning where I actually used them on my Vette for a few fights. Still no friend of these modules and if they would be required to survive I would do something else.
 
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.
 
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)
 
Last edited:
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
 
@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.
 
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?
 
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?
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.
 
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. ;)
 
But where else would you get combat bonds from other than in a war? Don't you see the issue here? If anyone is only interested in combat bonds but not in winning a war, than chances are he just grab bonds and not bother when losing the battle.

edit:
I'm talking about how I think it currently works (mistakes possible) but not how it *should* work.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
@Aasir Omondi
Thanks for your response and yes to all, but both described incidents happened only once. My wording probably suggested otherwise, sorry for that. I've also heard about these empty CZs but these never happened to me. You are right, before I only did some casual CZs but what I was talking about here was from a recent more intense week of combat for my Power.

Meanwhile I'm already away from PP (just not my cup of tea) but tasted blood for system manipulating. I'm back now to my home base and have started to try to flip a long established MF that controls this system for at least 3 years. Never did this before. Observations are much easier here since it's a pristine system without any human opposition as it seems. So far I'm surprised and fascinated how easy it is to change Inf against the controlling MF - and it's not exactly a small system. I'm looking forward to the soon to come conflicts here! :)

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. ;)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
  • 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).
i've been reading this over an over trying to understand it. previously there was an influence cap (the bottle of wine), so transactions resulting in an influence excess were simply discarded. at least this is how i understood it. once i reached my factions cap there was no more good or bad i could do, additional actions counted for nothing accept some credits.

it sounds like now, even though there is still a cap on daily influence gain, overflow is now being counted beyond the cap pushing a given faction to an influence that can exceed an overall sum of 100% for the system, then redistributing that excess influence to the other factions in order to 'equalize' which effectively removes the cap. or rather re-purposes the cap as a punishment for being reached.

choosing to consider overflow as part of influence gain/loss calculations seems like an odd choice given another BGS change to CZ's...

We've kept the relative balance of how each action is weighted against others, but it should now be much harder to lose a day in a Conflict by accidentally putting positive inputs into your opposing faction.
will you guys add more immediate feedback to influence levels similar to reputation gains on the completion of a mission or other transaction? clearer, cleaner and timely feedback on influence would go a long way in preventing unwanted inputs that can harm my faction.
 
Last edited:
i've been reading this over an over trying to understand it. previously there was an influence cap (the bottle of wine), so transactions resulting in an influence excess were simply discarded. at least this is how i understood it. once i reached my factions cap there was no more good or bad i could do, additional actions counted for nothing accept some credits.
I think you are trying to read more into this (your first quoted section) than there is. It's just saying if you increase one all the others go down because the total pie doesn't change - presumably many of the reports FDev are seeing are just that simple.

One of the systems I have an interest in is controlled by a faction put in place by the local powerplay team (a feudal faction in Hudson space). My preferred faction controls the other two ports in the system and maintaining my influence level between the controlling faction and all the others is difficult - it's a more stable system if I just leave it alone. A recent Thargoid attack has rocked the boat significantly making large influence swings way too easy. I can sit in the repairing port with a bunch of polymers, ceramic composites, aluminium etc & just complete loads of fetch missions without even leaving the dock. Kinda silly really but it means I can help every faction but one I want to push out if I want to just by helping all the others more than I help them ;)
 
Last edited:
I think you are trying to read more into this (your first quoted section) than there is. It's just saying if you increase one all the others go down because the total pie doesn't change - presumably many of the reports FDev are seeing are just that simple.

One of the systems I have an interest in is controlled by a faction put in place by the local powerplay team (a feudal faction in Hudson space). My preferred faction controls the other two ports in the system and maintaining my influence level between the controlling faction and all the others is difficult - it's a more stable system if I just leave it alone. A recent Thargoid attack has rocked the boat significantly making large influence swings way too easy. I can sit in the repairing port with a bunch of polymers, ceramic composites, aluminium etc & just complete loads of fetch missions without even leaving the dock. Kinda silly really but it means I can help every faction but one I want to push out if I want to just by helping all the others more than I help them ;)
that's why i keep looking at that line confused, because the way you are describing it is the way i've been familiar with for a long time - i.e. factions that don't contribute to the days influence get their wine taken.

but the way that FDev bullet point is worded makes it seem like reaching the cap causes positive inputs to be given to other factions, and possibly giving negative inputs to the faction you reached an influence cap on. i've been torn away from my gaming rig so i've not had a chance to play for quite some time and test it out personally.
 
Last edited:
What Dissappearing Stars? Can you link what you are talking about? becuase I would Love to read up on it and surely it been mentioned somewhere.
 
Top Bottom