News Background Simulation - Update (01/03)

[BL1P]

Ive said it many times, the devs need to tell us what is doing what with the BGS. Or what its supposed to do anyway.
A dev also needs to go through all the flavour text ingame related to the BGS and fix it.

Once players know for sure what is supposed to happen we can assist much more in reports.
Best place for this information is in the game in the codex. With the ability for the devs to update this easily.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

THANK YOU !!!

And no more conflicts without assets is a great feature.

Depends on which side of the equation you'll stand entirely good Sir.

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.

Being in support of a PMF that always has been trying to dominate all landable assets in a System from Day 1 I can positively say that it never was something easy to do and to maintain. But that's where the challenge part comes in.

With the 3.0+ BGS, owning all useful assets within a System is no longer a problem, for now each place would need to be put into a Lockdown separately (and the effect of Murder, even if recently fixed, has been a far cry from how devastating it once was).

So the only real problem if one wants to call that is if the possible opposition finally goes into supporting one MF that holds no assets and makes sure any other in the System gets into conflicts with each other first. Then it is quite well possible to skip everyone inside and go straight for the controlling one.

Assuming nobody watches the System and just lets this happen.

Again, that is the negative aspect of it all. The positive being the exact same thing: get MF into conflict with each other who own Settlements or higher, push your desired (P)MF to move up and equalise with the controlling one, make sure to win. That is assuming you only want to go for System control and nothing else. If you want to be thorough though you will be needing to fight at least 13 conflicts (13 being the max number of landable assets currently available in a System).

As for checking who owns what Settlement wise, I acknowledge that checking this way is a huge disadvantage to groups who own / need to maintain a large number of Systems. Which doesn't help Powerplay at all because they simply have to do that, contrary to a small / medium sized BGS with only a few Systems to worry about.

 

[Camisade]

And, as an additional side effect to all this BGS tweaking, not only does this make Outbreak HGE's virtually impossible to find, now War-related HGEs will become more scarce, too? GREAT!

This is all just one long, drawn-out ploy to make HGE hunting so painful we'll be HAPPY to pay for them via micro-transactions, right? Well, congratz! We're there now, so quit stalling and get on with it already!

 

[Ian Doncaster]

(and yes, I consider wars "work" now that we have to fight (almost) all seven days (given that such things as double and possibly even triple wins are possible).

Fortunately:

Winning Conflicts

• We've stopped awarding bonus days won if one side beat the other by a huge margin (designed to allow a faction to force a draw by heroic efforts if it was losing 4-0),
• Conflicts will now end earlier if there aren't enough days of the Conflict remaining for the losing faction to at least achieve a draw.
• This should make Conflict results less confusing and further reduce the number of Conflicts going on around the galaxy at any point in time.

...you won't have to deal with that any more. Double wins aren't possible and conflicts can be truncated if you get a big enough lead.

 

[CaptainKirby]

The Outbreak state no longer breaks War and Civil War scoring (a fix we introduced two weeks ago).

Good one, thanks.

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'm not sure about this change. It certainly helps to reduce the overall number of Conflicts, but as a result it will lead to even MORE conflicts for the factions that actually own assets. This will be an issue especially for factions present in multiple systems, because all those asset-less factions are going to hunt the asset factions down now and there's not much you can do about it except for continuous work in every system to push your faction out of reach - which might lead to unplanned expansions if you push a little bit too far, potentially raising the workload needed to stay out of conflict.

Factions with assets will trigger conflict after conflict after conflict.

I'm not sure how to tackle this issue, but I assume some kind of well-balanced, smart cooldown state after a conflict would do a much better job to reduce the number of conflicts. I'm thinking of something like this: If the attacking faction (the one that had lower influence before the conflict was triggered) loses the conflict, it cannot trigger a new conflict (with the winning faction) for, say, 10 days or so. I know this makes the system more complicated, but I don't think there's an easy answer to this.

 

[Camisade]

Fortunately:

...you won't have to deal with that any more. Double wins aren't possible and conflicts can be truncated if you get a big enough lead.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I obviously didn't read the OP thoroughly enough! That is indeed good news. (I much prefer the sprints to the marathons!)

 

[Nightstorm]

This all sounds good! As long as it hasn't made forcing a retreat even harder.

They changes look very good, but the proof will be in the pudding. Shame I can't try them out though as I am some distance from the bubble.

I'm sure the Lugh Freedom Fighters will be still trying them out when you return!

 

[Maeyat]

Wait&See(c) mode enabled.

 

[FrogsFriend]

"(subject to the usual rules of combat actions affecting War and Civil War and non-combat actions affecting Elections). "
While sounding all well and good, fall apart when you realise "Missions" count as non-combat, so an Assassination or Massacre mission works for Elections, but not for War.

I've tested this a few weeks back and have won days in conflicts by only doing war-themed missions.

[tested across multiple conflicts between low-ranked factions, where there was no player input for at least 2-3 days (zero days dominated by either side and a Draw) and then 2-3 missions completed in one day with no CZs, Bonds, Bounties, etc. used]

 

[Camisade]

One thing this new change flips completely onto its ear is that a previous strategy of championing a single faction and, through a succession of hard fought wars and other BGS work, pushing one or two other factions down to the bottom of a system's INF rank. That's been the strategy for forcing retreat, right? In so doing, with a LOT of hard work, people fought numerous wars for their favored faction(s), often ending up with all of a system's assets under a single ownership.

With this new change, it seems like an invader (or a bottom-ranked faction) can climb in INF all the way up to challenge the controlling faction without any barriers. Then, isn't the first war for the control of the most valuable asset?

So an invader can come into a system, fight ONE war, and potentially end up in control of the most valuable asset AND control of the system.

Do I have this wrong? Or should the change also have included a change that says that the faction that has risen in INF to challenge any of the system's asset owners must fight the war for the LEAST valuable asset?

 

[Jmanis]

One thing this new change flips completely onto its ear is that a previous strategy of championing a single faction and, through a succession of hard fought wars and other BGS work, pushing one or two other factions down to the bottom of a system's INF rank. That's been the strategy for forcing retreat, right? In so doing, with a LOT of hard work, people fought numerous wars for their favored faction(s), often ending up with all of a system's assets under a single ownership.

With this new change, it seems like an invader (or a bottom-ranked faction) can climb in INF all the way up to challenge the controlling faction without any barriers. Then, isn't the first war for the control of the most valuable asset?

So an invader can come into a system, fight ONE war, and potentially end up in control of the most valuable asset AND control of the system.

Do I have this wrong? Or should the change also have included a change that says that the faction that has risen in INF to challenge any of the system's asset owners must fight the war for the LEAST valuable asset?

I kinda see where you're going, but the situation is no different to the current mechanics (or the old ones) where, if you go to war with a faction with all assets, you'll win the most valuable (being the control station). That's no different. The difference now is that yes, you won't enter a bunch of intermediate wars where no sides hold assets along the way. I can see where this might appear problematic, but (especially if you were trying to expand), I feel it was a much worse situation having 2-4 factions locking up influence in a chain of pointless wars because they're all intertwined in terms of influence levels, leaving the lead faction unable to gain (or lose) any assets.

That said, the scenario of going to a single conflict with the faction owning all assets and winning control of the system has always been a point of contention. I don't think these mechanics change or introduce any problems that haven't already existed previously.

On your description of getting a faction with all assets to retreat and handing over all assets to the system controller... on consideration of the BGS as a "strategy game" I've always found that mechanic to be somewhat perverse and broken. Putting a faction down to >2.5% when they hold assets should, imo, actually trigger a conflict for control of that asset (like a reverse coup war), and the faction's retreat becomes a staged departure rather than an instantaneous handover of (potentially) 90% of a systems holdings to a faction who may not necessarily be the most dominant. Whether it triggers a war with the dominant faction or a random faction is debatable... but my preference would be a random faction. But I've never cared too much as, from my other posts, I don't really see the BGS primarily as that strategy game, rather just a "background sim"... and in that context the retreat/assets mechanic is at least "a decision" to answer a question.

Realistically, there's a greater rework of the whole conflict mechanics required for anyone who cares about the "strategy side" of the BGS. Just some spitball ideas
- As discussed, a faction going into a potential retreat state should actually go into a conflict for control of their asset (and as a safeguard from abuse, the triggering faction cannot 'attack' assets through such wars, only 'defend', to use the current terminology)
- Equalization conflicts (where the two faction influences equalize) should fight for the *least* valuable asset. Coup wars (<70ish% influence) should be for the most valuable.
- Another mechanic should exist (don't know what this needs to look like) in order for the controlling faction to "reach down" and trigger a conflict for other held assets... maybe something like the old investment state mechanics but focused on coup wars, and with an influence trigger higher than expansion.

So, yeah... I kinda see where you're going, but the conflict system is kinda broken anyway, so your suggested change to make wars be for the least valuable asset would, imo, just exacerbate extant issues.

 

[Kaocraft]

"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?

This is the thing I want a definitive answer from Frontier about. Personally I think that in order for CZ objectives to be worthwhile at all, they have to massively outclass all other methods of moving the needle during wartime. It's comparatively incredibly easy to do quick hit and run sorties to rack up lots of Combat Bond transactions, which is what everyone was doing before 3.3 and it would be such a shame if this remained the most effective method now that the (much cooler!) CZ objectives exist.

 

[aRJay]

This is the thing I want a definitive answer from Frontier about. Personally I think that in order for CZ objectives to be worthwhile at all, they have to massively outclass all other methods of moving the needle during wartime. It's comparatively incredibly easy to do quick hit and run sorties to rack up lots of Combat Bond transactions, which is what everyone was doing before 3.3 and it would be such a shame if this remained the most effective method now that the (much cooler!) CZ objectives exist.

If they massively outclass the other mechanics then it just comes down to one way to do things again and people get bored, much better to have all the mechanics are on average equally effective allowing choices.

 

[Witcher 7]

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.

 

[rekurzion]

One thing this new change flips completely onto its ear is that a previous strategy of championing a single faction and, through a succession of hard fought wars and other BGS work, pushing one or two other factions down to the bottom of a system's INF rank. That's been the strategy for forcing retreat, right? In so doing, with a LOT of hard work, people fought numerous wars for their favored faction(s), often ending up with all of a system's assets under a single ownership.

With this new change, it seems like an invader (or a bottom-ranked faction) can climb in INF all the way up to challenge the controlling faction without any barriers. Then, isn't the first war for the control of the most valuable asset?

So an invader can come into a system, fight ONE war, and potentially end up in control of the most valuable asset AND control of the system.

Do I have this wrong? Or should the change also have included a change that says that the faction that has risen in INF to challenge any of the system's asset owners must fight the war for the LEAST valuable asset?

before the recent changes i would just get all the factions in my way other than the system owner into war. either in that system or surrounding systems. this was typically quite easy and little work given the system was of a manageable population. a mission here, a few there and war was set.

with only one state per faction allowed at a time then i could just bang away with positive influence of my faction of choice and challenge the system owner by leap frogging all the other factions without a conflict.

with multiple states now allowed the invader no longer has access to this tactic and thus removed a very important strategic element from the battlefield. i'm not going as far to say conflicts only for asset holders is the right move but i can understand it. if that is offset by reducing influence gain or other offset so it takes more work to rise up the food chain then that might be an acceptable compromise.

 

[Jmanis]

If they massively outclass the other mechanics then it just comes down to one way to do things again and people get bored, much better to have all the mechanics are on average equally effective allowing choices.

But what does "on average equally effective" even mean?

I 'm not going to roll with the same terminology as kaocraft, but, well, let's play a game. Let's call 100k of combat bonds "1 point". Howe would you then score the following?

- 1m in combat bonds
- two transactions of 100k bonds
- low/med/ high czs respectively
- missions (noting not all missions are equal)
- USS scenarios

I suggested before that if 100k bonds was 100k, then a low cz is 5, med cz is 10 and high cz is 20. Missions might be 2 points each... but is a courier delivery the same as a massacre mission? Doubtful... but do we further allow double dipping on bonds and massacre missions? With that in mind, massacres shouldn't count at all. But then... I'd prefer massacre missions count, and bonds don't.

But if you mean roughly equal in the literal sense... it'll be 1t trading all over again.

If FD do a naive solution, it will be horribly broken. If FD do a good solution, there will be subtleties which mean some activities may not have effects which they intuitively may.... e.g my suggestion where combat bonds have no effect.

I agree players need choice, but that choice needs to be informed. I may suck at combat, and so want to support by hauling cargo.... but i need to know it's actually effective, and how effective it is compared to me just doing combat poorly.

 

[BL1P]

If you are fighting a war and no player actions are being made against you.
Is there a bucket system still where you can only do so many actions in a Tick ?
Then also if there is, is that bucket < than, >than or =to the amount needed to fill the new war bar to its max in a single tick ?

@Jmanis I like the ideas and Questions.

I especially like your last comment, Fdev need to inform the player base what happens if you do an action compared to another.

As to "How would you then score the following" :-
Ill just answer as simply as I can (so no screaming at me )

- 1m in combat bonds = Bond amount / 100k and rounded. (though maybe never greater than a high cz) ?
- two transactions of 100k = 2 points ?
- low/med/high czs = 5,10,20 ? (if other actions are far superior to the czs in time and points then increase to 50,100,200 or something)
- missions = use inf +++ system but make sure the missions are balanced in terms of +++ ? (maybe even make the rewards Bonds)
- USS = make the war USS give Bonds ?

Yer I know weak.... but until we get told what does what its all guess work anyway

 

[Jmanis]

But this is strange, when was that? I've got frequently reputation hits from the opposing faction, directly after the CZ was won and also visible on the status page, down to unfriendly and not just a few percentages. That was about one week ago... So what's a fact for you I can't confirm. What might have been different to your experience? Just a wild guess: Are you doing these combat zones in a wing or solo? I've solo'd all of them.

All mine are solo too. Are you taking massacre missions? They do cause reputation hits as expected.

I've never had reputation damage from winning a CZ and have too many examples of this.

And just to reiterate because people have "thrown toys out the pram" about this before.. I'm not saying you haven't had rep damage from completing a cz.... just that i haven't, and therefore there may still be erroneous bgs behaviours.

Fwiw... prople who claimed to have observed rep loss were also taking massacre missions.

I'm get the link to others with the same experiences later

 

[Kaocraft]

If they massively outclass the other mechanics then it just comes down to one way to do things again and people get bored, much better to have all the mechanics are on average equally effective allowing choices.

No. Yes. But, no.
If every mechanism is balanced against every other mechanism, and the attendant upfront costs and potential costs for failure and levels of attention and expertise required for each activity is taken into account such that all methods are potentially viable routes to achieving the same result, then: Yes. Sure. Fine. Good.

But in order to achieve this, CZ objectives need to massively outclass Combat Bonds in terms of the number of "points" they give for each success. Why? Because CZ objectives require more skill, take longer to do, are less predictable, and you can't just drop in and out over and over again to achieve them. If CZ don't substantially outclass raw Combat Bond farming, then the one true only correct action will always be to farm Combat Bonds and never stick around long enough to engage with the CZ tug-o-war or the objectives. It relegates CZs and their objectives to a "just for fun" bit of fluff rather than a central element of winning wars. And call me crazy but I think that wars should at least partially be won by winning battles.

However, making CZs orders of magnitude more valuable than Bonds alone would NOT negate the value of Combat Bond farming. Combat Bond Farming is an activity you could pursue if you do not have the skill or time to complete a CZ and its objectives, because doing 10 successful quick sorties for bonds would, for many, be preferable to risking the potential time investment of slugging it out in a CZ that you don't have a strong chance of winning.

The way it should work is that if you are intent on moving the needle as fast and efficiently as possible you will always attempt to do CZ objectives. However if you fail or have to retreat, you will nonetheless have acquired Combat Bonds as a kind of "consolation prize" during your attempt, thus ensuring that you are still going to make *some* progress whether you manage to complete the CZ or not. Meanwhile players who do not feel up to the task of completing CZs and their objectives will always have the option of making a slower and steadier but still meaningful contribution by running Combat Bond farming sorties.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

But is retreating or losing not counting in favor of the opposition? If true, then combat bond farming without winning a battle would be a double edged sword, at least unless we know the exact weight (or points?) of each of these actions.

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.