News Background Simulation - Update (01/03)
- Thread starter Will Flanagan
- Start date
Returning player here.... Discord??[woah] anyone got a link ?? thx [up]
Thank you for providing an update.
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.
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 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.
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.
This is very good, thank you for the communication, which is probably the thing that I appreciate the most about all of this situation.
I've got just a couple of questions about what you wrote.
- You talked about avoiding to do positive actions especially to low influence factions: does this mean that a positive action done for them has a relative bigger impact than the same action done for a faction with a very high influence?
- Did you investigate the strange spike in influence for the factions in active retreat, usually triggering a conflict and make the retreat fail?
Thanks for your answer.
I've got just a couple of questions about what you wrote.
- You talked about avoiding to do positive actions especially to low influence factions: does this mean that a positive action done for them has a relative bigger impact than the same action done for a faction with a very high influence?
- Did you investigate the strange spike in influence for the factions in active retreat, usually triggering a conflict and make the retreat fail?
Thanks for your answer.
Do installations attack / defense constitute a 'combat mission?'
Just checking definition of 'invasion', which is a non-native faction equalling the influence of a native faction? or any faction including non-native?
Or at least add the info to the FSS scanner, so we can find out who's in charge of an installation.
Looks good btw.
I like the removal of pointless wars.
I like the early finish of already-won wars
ps - we won in Drevlyada CG. You owe me 1x Grandin Port
Excellent. I'll skip comment on the actual changes, other than to say that there's some very interesting ones here, and just say that I think it's great that you've described what's been changed in this much detail. It should give a lot more clarity about what's a bug and what's an intended change, as well as what we should be looking at for testing. Looking forward to more of this as things continue to develop!
I agree with Ian. It is exactly this kind of communication we need from you guys.
Very good! Thanks for the work !!
Been saying this for years, and finally somebody listened....
Thank you FDev
Last edited:
Priceless
Great stuff. Thanks, Will.
Let's play
Let's play
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.