We're a corporate faction and in one of our systems we're at war with another corporate faction. Not sure why it's not an election. Has anyone else seen something like this?
BGS changes: Learnings/Issues/comments
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Haven't you heard of Corporate Wars in r/l?
Old but https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...h_minor_faction_types_hold_elections_instead/
There's a hidden factor when 2 Government types are the same.
So maybe those 2 Corporations really hate each other.
Two long-standing (though rare) possibilities:
1) One of the corporate factions (and presumably you'd know if it was yours) is a non-standard one. Check the local news item for each faction - where it says at the bottom how happy the people are to be working for the faction, the wordings will be different for the two factions in this case.
2) The faction expanded into the system when it already had 7 factions, which starts an immediate war with another non-native faction. This happens even if the two factions would normally hold an election.
Or it could be something new, or a bug.
Thanks guys. It must be that one of us is "non standard"
Good to know this might be working as intended
Good to know this might be working as intended
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
and we have a faction with 14 conflicts, 9 of which are stuck
Last edited:
How long does a planned expansion last? Ours has lasted for 5 days and influence seems to be locked at 71% (it dropped a little on the first day and has stayed the same since)
Also I have a system listed as happiest and it is not in investment nor civil liberty and is under 50% influence. Meanwhile, we have 5 systems in investment and one with civil liberty AND investment...all others listed as happy with higher influence. The happiest system we just won in a war about a week ago and was instantly listed as happiest. From what I understood from the BGS live stream by devs, the happiest system would be where a faction would expand from.......but we have planned expansion from another system entirely. I'm as confused as I can be.....I don't mind changes but geez....a little direction would be nice. Never understood the secrecy of the BGS by devs.
Also I have a system listed as happiest and it is not in investment nor civil liberty and is under 50% influence. Meanwhile, we have 5 systems in investment and one with civil liberty AND investment...all others listed as happy with higher influence. The happiest system we just won in a war about a week ago and was instantly listed as happiest. From what I understood from the BGS live stream by devs, the happiest system would be where a faction would expand from.......but we have planned expansion from another system entirely. I'm as confused as I can be.....I don't mind changes but geez....a little direction would be nice. Never understood the secrecy of the BGS by devs.
Last edited:
Happiest on squad page seems bugged. It's clearly not the happiest system if you use the happiness description to compare.
What fd said about expansion seems to have not been implemented. It seems to be following the old rules for selecting the system, and matches what station news says during pending.
What fd said about expansion seems to have not been implemented. It seems to be following the old rules for selecting the system, and matches what station news says during pending.
Expansion doesn't lock influence - it may be that most/all of the other factions in the system are pending/active/recovering conflicts, and therefore there's no "free" influence for your faction to take, though.
6 or 7 days seem to be the most common expansion durations.
We are hypothesizing that the bug gumming up states/conflicts is related to triggering pending expansions. It may be the same for influence. Expansion appears to be the only faction wide state now (correctly or otherwise).
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Pretty sure we have factions that are gummed up that have not had an expansion state active or pending
And we have had some conflicts move while others don't. More accurate to say that we are hypothesizing that one of the bugs gumming up states/conflicts is related to triggering pending expansions.
The problems I am experiencing does have a system in pending expansion ( about 3 weeks pending)
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/469083-Bugs-are-they-effecting-systems-or-factions
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/469083-Bugs-are-they-effecting-systems-or-factions
We too. We have a System on Pending Expansion from 16 days and the influence frozen on 76%.
Our oldest active conflicts just reached 24 days.
also some granular explo testing results:
90 K pop system - no states, no traffic
1 X 800 cr = +0.2%
1 X 800 cr = +0.1%
1 X 19999 cr = -0.3%
Ok,
we lost again Elections.
The BGS acts completely random, one day you do stuff and win, the day after you do the same stuff and lose.
Doing INF+++++ missions in another system in NONE state led to NONE change.
I'm out of this crap for now. Thanx Frontier for crippling the game and for wasting a lot of our time.
we lost again Elections.
The BGS acts completely random, one day you do stuff and win, the day after you do the same stuff and lose.
Doing INF+++++ missions in another system in NONE state led to NONE change.
I'm out of this crap for now. Thanx Frontier for crippling the game and for wasting a lot of our time.
Just curious, the way the cz is designed it seems (when it works) that a player chooses a side and fights to win the zone. Small influence gained along with rep. Okay. So what prevents someone going in, choosing a side and intentionally losing the battle to hurt an opposing faction? What an easy way to screw up an opposing pmf. Intentionally losing should never be an option. I feel the same way about taking stations. Sometimes you have to work against your own faction, to lower influence, to try and gain a station that your group passed up. Seems very counter intuitive. If you reach 80 influence, you should be able to fight for another station. Working against your own faction is a horrible gameplay mechanic.
The thing that stops it is it's difficult to reliably, intentionally lose a cz. Doable sure, but unreliable. You'd have a much better time just supporting your favoured faction.
I mean... contributing to one side of the faction is faster to win for that faction than letting them win on their own. Alternately you 5th column it and have the whole instance hostile and you get no bonds. It's lose lose.
E.g your options are:
- join the opposite side and do nothing, just hope they lose (slowest, and unreliable. ; or
- fight for the side you want to win. Faster, get bonds; or
- join the side you don't want to win and 5th column it (arguably as fast as second option, but whole cz will be hostile to you then, and no bonds). So higher risk, less rewards.
Really... best way to hurt a faction is just to support their aggressors.
Last edited:
If you would like to support this suggestion, we might get somewhere. Or not.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/470768-Explain-the-BGS
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/470768-Explain-the-BGS