BGS changes: Learnings/Issues/comments

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fz4uqxx9ax289g6/Elite - Dangerous (CLIENT) 31_10_2018 10_53_42.mp4?dl=0

This account ran visited and run missions in all the systems that are showing as no system info

Surely that's an artefact of beta being a separate galaxy/database, and shared discovery will fix that up fairly quickly, if it's even an issue when it goes live?

EDIT: And just to contextualise... all the populated systems which I recall needed to be explored in my local area are all accessible for influence via the galaxy system map no problems,, though it's highly likely I've visited them in previous Betas. I doubt you've been to all those 300+ systems in beta before.

By contrast, in past Betas I've checked out one or two Guardian Ruin sites... those are also explored w/ system map available.. but many other places I have been to in live and bookmarked do not have the system map available.

So... it would seen exploration data is based off your beta activity only, but bookmarks are ripped from the live game. Would make sense as that would be a large and inconvenient amount of data to copy.
 
Last edited:
I think that's just been confirmed in a bug thread I was reading. The Beta exploration data per Cmdr is Beta-only they haven't carried all the live exploration data across.
 
Can you give an example system? I can check out plenty without having to physically go there. And don't forget, Squadrons will allow you to track the systems your squadron is affiliated with.

Unless you don't belong to any squadron.
 
I'm assuming one positive for differing states per system for a faction is that war states no longer restrict influence gain in non war state systems for the same faction? Maybe a bit too early for confirmation but it stands to reason right? This is the reason I stopped with the BGS and if not an issue I will definitely get involved again...
 
I'm assuming one positive for differing states per system for a faction is that war states no longer restrict influence gain in non war state systems for the same faction? Maybe a bit too early for confirmation but it stands to reason right? This is the reason I stopped with the BGS and if not an issue I will definitely get involved again...

That would appear to be the way its intended to work.
 
My guess (for testing is that it is a simple difference between the positive and negative buckets we already have)

These figures were given by FD. They were near enough impossible to test while the buckets were hidden
  • Boom: trade (1) Exploration (1) piracy(-1)
  • Bust: trade (-1) Exploration (-1) piracy (1)
  • Civil: Unrest: Trade (-2) Bounties (-1) Murder (1) Fines (2) Combat Bond (-2)
  • Famine: Food trade (-2) Exploration (-1)
  • Outbreak: Medicine Trade (-2) Exploration (-1)
  • Lockdown: Black Market (1) bounties (-1) murder (1)

Given my limited testing to date I'm assuming that the scenarios have similar influence level effects as single missions as the time taken to complete would be consistent - As FOTM the could have outsized effects. Do we have any idea of whether the scenarios will also have state bucket effects?
 
Given my limited testing to date I'm assuming that the scenarios have similar influence level effects as single missions as the time taken to complete would be consistent - As FOTM the could have outsized effects. Do we have any idea of whether the scenarios will also have state bucket effects?
The one in the livestream had one of economy and security listed, so ... while it might not be quite a bucket so much as a seesaw now, I think they will have effects.
 
It wasn't clear to me whether the new CZs still require your to go to a station to submit bonds, or it is simply a question of staying in the CZ and fight wave after wave of enemies.

If the latter, this seems to have the potential for "healies4feelies" exploitation.
 
I'm assuming one positive for differing states per system for a faction is that war states no longer restrict influence gain in non war state systems for the same faction? Maybe a bit too early for confirmation but it stands to reason right? This is the reason I stopped with the BGS and if not an issue I will definitely get involved again...

Note though that an additional "pressure" if you like will be that you'll almost certainly be able to go to war in multiple systems at once.

EDIT: Make that certainly. Beta snapshot is when my faction was under siege from Winters... my faction is already in multiple war states now.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't clear to me whether the new CZs still require your to go to a station to submit bonds, or it is simply a question of staying in the CZ and fight wave after wave of enemies.

If the latter, this seems to have the potential for "healies4feelies" exploitation.

I fear the latter - but not had chance to test it

I understand the fear of the healies for feelies stuff, but FD will probably need to come up with a way to fix that, rather than re-instate combat bonds for affecting the outcome of a war. Having been on the receiving end, healies for feelies still hurt you hard if someone did that in your system.

But reality is, resolving each conflict zone is a far more logical mechanism, and it's *finally* a fix to the current game-breaking implementation of the Hostile rep state which prevents you participating in wars, and that's the greater of these two effects, in my opinion.
 
yeah, I am just really conflicted. On the one hand I am keen and excited to get going with the new mechanics, and figure out ways to manage the new multi-states per system.

But all of that is overshadowed by the current and future botting and exploitation in the BGS (and PP). If not addressed (and so far it hasn't been at all), either BGS play will disappear (or everybody will hide their activities for fear of being noticed), or everybody will start to run bots to survive. That would be terribly sad. I am really concerned.
 
Last edited:
yeah, I am just really conflicted. On the one hand I am keen and excited to get going with the new mechanics, and figure out ways to manage the new multi-states per system.

But all of that is overshadowed by the current and future botting and exploitation in the BGS (and PP). If not addressed (and so far it hasn't been at all), either BGS play will disappear (or everybody will hide their activities for fear of being noticed), or everybody will start to run bots to survive. That would be terribly sad. I am really concerned.

OK, so I just did a CZ. Basically it goes like this.

- Jump into CZ
- Pick a side
- Fight til you fill the bar
- Bar fills, losing side flees the zone.

The whole premise of "healies for feelies" is, in my opinion, a set and forget, come back in 4-5 hours to a bunch of money/ability to influence the BGS.

With mechanics like that, you'll need to be attending the game every 30 minutes or so to reset the instance. TBH, I don't find that too unreasonable. I'm not going to try and argue whether the healies for feelies tactic itself is broken or not, but where it turns from a smart fitting and tactics to an exploit is when you just set and forget for hours on end, (e.g I set it up with some mates, go to bed, come online in the morning and we've won the war). But that won't work... instance will clear out in 30 minutes and nothing will happen from there. A complex enough bot might be able to leave instance, go back in, re-link and go on, but again, the whole thing with healies for feelies is it just needed the right fitting and going AFK without any bot needed, which made it much more accessible.

So, I don't think it's going to be as big a deal as we think at this point.
 
Didn't they say that after a while the next wave comes automatically? That means they don't have to leave at all

It resets if you jump out and in again.... I hung round for a good 5-10 minutes at the end of the last one I did and nothing happened? Maybe it takes longer?

I'm doing a high intensity one now, having done low and medium. Will hang around longer this time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom