BGS changes: Learnings/Issues/comments
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Conflict, day 25. There's a lot of factions in stuck state. No word from FD.
Investment is now an economic state, above boom, and will presumably last as long as people keep doing economy boosting missions, etc.
Yup. Staying indefinitely in Famine, Bust, Boom or Investment, along with Lockdown, Civil Unrest, Civil Liberty, is entirely normal.
The stuck expansions and wars aren't though. Every expansion/war I've watched has lasted 7 days from activation, which is the status quo.
Working as intended.
There is a mean to move inf during prio 1 but since i don t know if bug or not, i am waiting to see FD fixes before sharing it.
What, I have been taking Investment missions for the system - are you saying I shouldn't do any missions for it to get out of this state?
Well... you need to hurt your economy to get it out which is nontrivial (e.g there's no factions in bust or famine because it's not easy)
Why do you want to get rid out the state? It shouldn't be hurting your faction at all
Last edited:
So I can expand into another system.
Investment won't block Expansion now... as mentioned by others the two are now entirely unrelated... it's just another economic state and can co-exist with Expansion.
If you're not entering expansion when you think you're meant to be, it could be a result of the "stuck" states bug that was purportedly fixed last night.
Last edited:
No, its a super boom state. Expansions now can simply fail for no reason.
Last edited:
Ninja'ed.. this one. Boosts the value of core minerals and creates boom-like missions.
Last edited:
Bummer, so I have to get another system to go into Expansion for entry into another system?
No? *IF* the mechanism for expansion is the same as pre-3.3, you just need to get that expansion up to 70-odd% and it'll create the Expansion, and Investment will happily tick along. Investment has absolutely nothing to do with Expansion now, and won't block it.
The *IF* is because FD explained that the mechanism for Expansion is now measured across *all* systems a faction is present in, and not just a single system getting over 70%. I can confirm expansion is a faction-wide state when active in 3.3.
However, some players have reported that expansion is functioning just like pre-3.3 (i.e you just need over ~ 70% in a single system). I can't validate that myself though.
But again, note this has been a thing recently: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...uding-Expansion-stuck-across-squadron-faction
It apparently only got fixed last tick, so your faction may have been suffering from that. What system/faction are you trying to get expanding?
Last edited:
If Frontier's fix yesterday worked, yes, you should get an expansion from that soon.
If you don't, it's not because the Investment is blocking it - before everything jammed up there were several factions successfully expanding while in Investment as well.
If you don't, it's not because the Investment is blocking it - before everything jammed up there were several factions successfully expanding while in Investment as well.
What Ian said. Jammed-up systems were meant to be fixed... though it's sounding like there's other issues.
The big problem right now is that because of the jammed-up issues, nobody can accurately tell right now if expansion works the same as pre-3.3, or according to the new rules FD claimed in their livestream... that is:
- If it's still pre-3.3 rules, then yes, that over-80% faction should make go pending globally for Expansion in this tick, all going well, and was probably jammed up by the bugs.
- If it's post-3.3 rules, you might go into Expansion, but if you don't, it could be because of the new rules FD talked about in 3.3 because the BGS bugs have been fixed... or it could be still bugged. It's hard to tell.
Short version, forget everything you knew before 3.3 landed.
Poor olde me is really confused at what I have just read.
Regarding this expansion m'larky,
The FDevs made a big thing about saying how we would expand from the 'Happiest' system that we own.
'Happiest' for me is something I only see in one of our 24 systems. It is an awful system that I would love to disown. W never really work the location and it is certainly not in the best of 'states'
Are we now saying those words spilled out by the developers is a load of tosh and it is once again influence that is the deciding factor?
We should not really say that expansion could not fail prior to this update as for me it did on a few occasions, some of which I manipulated, others purely because they felt like it and after a cooldown period, this failed expansion went exactly to the system I was hoping to get. When this game first started I thought there was a very long pdf file which explained most of the basics and I thought it said in that book 'Expansion might fail'
Going back to my question
Happiest'
Is it only seen in just one of our systems and if so what on earth is its meaning?
Thanks
John
Regarding this expansion m'larky,
The FDevs made a big thing about saying how we would expand from the 'Happiest' system that we own.
'Happiest' for me is something I only see in one of our 24 systems. It is an awful system that I would love to disown. W never really work the location and it is certainly not in the best of 'states'
Are we now saying those words spilled out by the developers is a load of tosh and it is once again influence that is the deciding factor?
We should not really say that expansion could not fail prior to this update as for me it did on a few occasions, some of which I manipulated, others purely because they felt like it and after a cooldown period, this failed expansion went exactly to the system I was hoping to get. When this game first started I thought there was a very long pdf file which explained most of the basics and I thought it said in that book 'Expansion might fail'
Going back to my question
Happiest'
Is it only seen in just one of our systems and if so what on earth is its meaning?
Thanks
John