I LIKE the uncertainty. I really dont want it all boiled down to a formula.
Having said that I do want some assurance that the thing that i'm doing that common sense tells me should help ... is in fact having an effect on the outcome.
BGS changes: Learnings/Issues/comments
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
I LIKE the uncertainty. I really dont want it all boiled down to a formula.
Having said that I do want some assurance that the thing that i'm doing that common sense tells me should help ... is in fact having an effect on the outcome.
Results for actions should be consistent and repeatable within the rules of the game. The main uncertainty should be human intervention, otherwise all actions are subject to the dreaded RNG.
Any BGS system will be boiled down to a formula, a set of rules that can be deciphered (which is the fun and challenge of the BGS game). I dont mind that it is changing, I am not convinced that the BGS game (at least the way we play it) will be improved. Perhaps it will be for the generality of cmdrs, and maybe that unfortunately outweighs our nerdy BGS desires!
To clarify, I was hypothesizing about how the system is working (and could thus be tested), not about how it ought to work.
I agree with you about how it ought to work.
Well we disagree in the detail then
I wwant to have some certainty that if i run a dozen cargo missions from A to B that it will help the influence at B and thats the startegic direction my faction is taking. I also like the idea that estimating that "about a dozen" seems right.
But when it gets to.... "we need you to run 13 missions, well 12.6 really but round it up to 13, that should give us the last 3% of influence we need to push us into election." then it gets cold from an imersion and gameplay perspectibve for me.
I broadly agree that actions should have consistent results. But being able to calculate effects to a % point makes it managing the formula not playing the game. Its a personal thing.
I agree though that what I don't want is one load of cargo to influence the BGS by 20% and the next identical load to have a -80% result. The big issue with RNG in most games is that the weighting is too high.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. We definitely agree that that's how the system is currently working
I said it before and will say it again after new tests :
- No redeeming bonds during war and completing objectives is WORKING. Tested again yesterday. So far, tested in 2 different systems with same behavior.
- Bonds are still working also. You can do both or one or the other. Nevertheless, Bonds seems to have more effect on the conflict bar status.
- Finally, war are lasting more than 7 days, I have one on going since last Tuesday (i have fought just 2 days -one with bonds only, one with objectives completed only).
context : Faction A has 82,5% inf and faction B has 2,2%. And I wanted faction A to lose.
Assumption 1 : The fact I fought just 2 days and faction B won only 2 days on 7 should be a draw based on FD rules. Fact that faction A is so high makes the war continue until a winner or maybe the famous 28 days.
Assumption 2 : BGS doesn't know how to react when winner influence is a lot lower than influence of the loser.
Assumption 3 : There has been less than 7 ticks since last tuesday.
Assumption 4 : New features are bugged. Or all possible cases not tested by FD.
- No redeeming bonds during war and completing objectives is WORKING. Tested again yesterday. So far, tested in 2 different systems with same behavior.
- Bonds are still working also. You can do both or one or the other. Nevertheless, Bonds seems to have more effect on the conflict bar status.
- Finally, war are lasting more than 7 days, I have one on going since last Tuesday (i have fought just 2 days -one with bonds only, one with objectives completed only).
context : Faction A has 82,5% inf and faction B has 2,2%. And I wanted faction A to lose.
Assumption 1 : The fact I fought just 2 days and faction B won only 2 days on 7 should be a draw based on FD rules. Fact that faction A is so high makes the war continue until a winner or maybe the famous 28 days.
Assumption 2 : BGS doesn't know how to react when winner influence is a lot lower than influence of the loser.
Assumption 3 : There has been less than 7 ticks since last tuesday.
Assumption 4 : New features are bugged. Or all possible cases not tested by FD.
Last edited:
That for sure, as well as live data still hanging around messing up outcomes. Was this war you are messing with only started once the BGS had clean ticks in the beta?
I don't think we'll get any proper test output until we're well away from old tallies from the old system, I suspect some of what were seeing is just a result of live data.
Let's be honest though, do you expect any major improvements in the BGS during the beta? I think we'll have to take these issues into live and push FD to affect change once we have clear proof of the BGS doing stupid things...I just hope they will take things on board and address our concerns, it's certainly not been the case in the past, not without a lot of pain first.
Timer may havereset when they dropped the new patches in. Going to be hard to be sure until live.
I think I found the answer by digging in the journal. it is a bug and a change it seems. Just waiting tomorrow tick to confirm it or not.
very interesting, might give it a test again after the weekend.
A theoretical framework for conflict in 3.3, based on limited observations only (subject to change and new evidence):
Conflict triggers on influence match
Pending 2 days (TBC)
Influence is locked for the purposes of the conflict resolution only.
Influence changes for the conflict factions are counted in the background but have no effect on the conflict bar, the visible influence count or non conflict factions.
Certain actions add/detract to the background influence changes for the war factions.
Certain actions effect the war bar on a daily basis moving a step either direction depending on balance of activity. (one step a day only?).
Duration of conflict should be 7 days but still uncertain (either bug or doesn't work as described).
At conclusion of conflict win/draw/loss is decided by the location on the war bar.
Last day of war after asset transfer (TBC)
Conflicts to end in a draw if a faction loses 4 days but wins the other 3 days by a huge margin
The +/- balance of influence changes accrued during the duration are applied to both conflict factions upon resolution of the war. If both sides total positive actions both rise at the end of the conflict.
As this appears to be 7 days of accrued influence changes hitting at once the influence changes can be significant.
Cooldown 1 day (TBC)
heh can you imagine the uproar? buying popcorn futures now. Most wont have noticed but every cmdr with a a faction will be twitching.
If there are edge cases due to live>beta likely they will be recreated in 3.2>3.3.
Yeah, sure, and it's likely to be a couple of weeks after release before we can see the BGS for what it is
It should be the case in beta soon too but we'll be left with no time to review and fix before go-live
Can you show what "bonds seems to have more effect" means by way of screenshots, or explain it in some other wayDeareim;7158066' - Bonds are still working also. You can do both or one or the other. Nevertheless [B said:
As far as all my tests have gone so far, there's only four positions the bar can be in, "Draw", "Close Victory/Defeat", "Victory/Defeat", "Total Victory/Defeat", where the position of the bar switches between these as the warring factions win/lose each day, rather than it being a "sliding" bar with points in between. Or do you mean one of:
- Bonds are a more effective mechanism than clearing CZs, for the purposes of winning that day; or
- You've managed to get two shifts of the bar in a single day
So, with Squadrons in place, I checked out the Squadron Allegience page... seems as useful as how it looked in the livestream.
Big problem I can see though... the state of a conflict isn't listed on the summary page. That's almost critical information, imo.
EDIT: Actually, something's completely messed. All the wars my faction was involved in are now "None" states, but the war tracking bar is still present.
2nd EDIT: Bugreported here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ence-page-all-messed-up?p=7152625#post7152625
But now looking like it's the "last day" of war; no conflict zones, assets have exchanged where necessary, but None state, yet conflict status bar is still active. So weird.
Also, very weird feeling to gain an asset when having lower influence in a war outcome
Just following up... I think I know what happened now.
The war I was involved in was a war triggered for control, by the enemy faction being on 70% and my faction on 5%. We (the 5%) won the war, but at the conclusion, a new war went pending immediately (and at least, there was no sign of cooldown). Something's going to have to change there, with influence locked you could be stuck in a permanent state of war.
Based on what I saw in the jounaL, cooldown for war is 2 days now. During that period, the right panel withe the conflict bar status doesn't disappear, which is confusing AF, especially when a new war is pending directly after.
Cool thanks. Yeah. The conflict icon stays in place on the squadron allegience page when in cooldown and pending. That's what was most confusing.
Well, we are all going to have a problem. Megaships are devastating.
So I took on one just to see the best way to assault them, then the next tick looked a the system again... -4% for the leading faction. Ok, let's do this again, this time as a controlled experiment: same system pop class (190k), shot components a few times accumulating 12 bounties (200cr each, total 20400) - result, -4%.
DAMN.
Now most systems have megaship and installations, and all of them are tied to the leading faction. They all have a lot of faction ships around too waiting to be killed, but why even bother getting charged with murder when you can land a few shots on the megaship and tank the associate faction with only a minimal charge?
This really needs to be changed, otherwise there will be a blood bath!
So I took on one just to see the best way to assault them, then the next tick looked a the system again... -4% for the leading faction. Ok, let's do this again, this time as a controlled experiment: same system pop class (190k), shot components a few times accumulating 12 bounties (200cr each, total 20400) - result, -4%.
DAMN.
Now most systems have megaship and installations, and all of them are tied to the leading faction. They all have a lot of faction ships around too waiting to be killed, but why even bother getting charged with murder when you can land a few shots on the megaship and tank the associate faction with only a minimal charge?
This really needs to be changed, otherwise there will be a blood bath!
Was that the only action taken in that system that day?
Very likely. These systems show practically no traffic. Now I'm going to repeat the test a few times, and also try multiple times in a day.
It may be worth seeing what happens if you also do say one or two actions for the Controlling Faction on the same day e.g. a bounty hand-in or complete a mission, just to see if it's as easy to offset the negative effect as create it.