BGS Question - Missions and Combat Bonds - Can they counter each other?

Mystweaver

Mystweaver
Hi all,

I wonder if someone can confirm whether I have made a mistake or not.

I currently doing work for our minor faction and have been doing missions in system A.
We are have no control over any station (but are present in system)

Last night I completed 19 missions for my minor faction and then proceeded to move into another system (B) where we had gone to war.

I collected ~2mil in combat bonds and moved back to System A where I handed them in. The bonds were earmarked for my faction, but as I handed them into a station owned by the faction we are trying to take over, I think I might have just undermined my mission running efforts.

Can anyone confirm this?
 
Last edited:

Schlack

S
Only combat actions count during wartime - Bonds and Bounties. No matter which system the war is located in, the wartime influence modifier is effective across the faction in all its systems. Without all the details, it sounds like you were doing missions that had no effect.
 

MottiKhan

MottiKhan
Unlike bounties, combat bonds gained in one system and cashed in another don't have any effect on influence. You have to cash them in at the system where they were gained.

Also, as said above, only combat missions count factionwide in a war or civil war.
 

Macklroy

M
Can anyone confirm if destroying the civilian ships aligned with the controlling faction has the same negative effect on that controlling faction when they are at war?The minor faction that I support is currently at war and my faction does not have any massacre missions available, while the opposing faction (empire minor faction) does. I believe random cmdrs have flocked to the system to grind credits/Imp rank at the expense of my factions war effort.Handing in combat bonds has proven ineffective at keeping pace with the massive influence gains that the opposing faction is receiving from their massacre missions.I was hoping to start destroying civilian ships in the system to stem these gains. Is this a fruitless endeavor?Thanks-
 

M. Grey

M. Grey
Murder always has effect imo. But others would have to comment on this.

I read that massacre missions have NO effect on the influence. BUT the CMDRs attracted by these, them earning combat bonds is what makes the difference.
You could try to work against the masses by cashing more often, maybe even after every kill. It's the number of transactions that matters, not the value...
 

mia389

M
mr.Gr3y said:
Murder always has effect imo. But others would have to comment on this.

I read that massacre missions have NO effect on the influence. BUT the CMDRs attracted by these, them earning combat bonds is what makes the difference.
You could try to work against the masses by cashing more often, maybe even after every kill. It's the number of transactions that matters, not the value...
Click to expand...

Massacre mission surely do count for influence. All war related missions do.
 

M. Grey

M. Grey
Mercs of Mikunn (iirc) did some testing here and the result was missions did not add to influence.

Be it just a "hot fix" by FDev to have those mode-switching-massacre-missions-stacking-hordes-only-in-for-the-credits™ having less impact on the BGS.
Also this would help where massacre missions are not offered. Sometimes you have these just for one side...player faction sometimes getting none.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
What everyone else said: bonds handed into another system have no effect there.

Unless something has changed also, missions during war have no effect either.
 

Macklroy

M
Limoncello Lizard said:
Everything I have read on the BGS megathread agrees with this. So does my limited testing.The missions affect the target faction state by pushing them into lockdown, but don't affect the influence.
Click to expand...
If this is true it is counter to EVERYTHING that I have noticed in our conflicts. In conflicts in which neither side has MMs available we have won, but influence gains are minimum. In conflicts where both sides have MMs available we have won, and our influence gains are 8-10% daily. In conflicts where the opposing faction has MMs and our faction does not we have lost, and our influence loss is 8-10% daily. From what I have read from the Devs, "during times of war only military missions have an impact on influence" ... Surely MMs are military missions. So why is it assumed they have no effect on influence? ... See page 1 of the BGS THREAD updated just this month. In times of war only military missions and actions affect influence. This agrees with everything I have heard from the Devs as well. Can someone who disagrees provide a link or information as to where they have come to these conclusions? Thanks in advance. Just trying to understand what is happening in the background....sim. :)
 
Last edited:

mia389

M
Macklroy said:
If this is true it is counter to EVERYTHING that I have noticed in our conflicts. In conflicts in which neither side has MMs available we have won, but influence gains are minimum. In conflicts where both sides have MMs available we have won, and our influence gains are 8-10% daily. In conflicts where the opposing faction has MMs and our faction does not we have lost, and our influence loss is 8-10% daily. From what I have read from the Devs, "during times of war only military missions have an impact on influence" ... Surely MMs are military missions. So why is it assumed they have no effect on influence? ... See page 1 of the BGS THREAD updated just this month. In times of war only military missions and actions affect influence. This agrees with everything I have heard from the Devs as well. Can someone who disagrees provide a link or information as to where they have come to these conclusions? Thanks in advance. Just trying to understand what is happening in the background....sim. :)
Click to expand...

Crickets.....
 

Limoncello Lizard

Limoncello Lizard
Macklroy said:
... Surely MMs are military missions. So why is it assumed they have no effect on influence? ... See page 1 of the BGS THREAD updated just this month. In times of war only military missions and actions affect influence. This agrees with everything I have heard from the Devs as well. Can someone who disagrees provide a link or information as to where they have come to these conclusions? Thanks in advance. Just trying to understand what is happening in the background....sim. :)
Click to expand...

It has come about through testing. Comparing claiming massacre missions and claiming the bonds with the missions without claiming bonds and just bonds. By themselves, the missions have no effect on influence, and there is no noticeable difference between bonds with and without missions. What does work is claiming bonds more frequently in small batches compared with one large bond claim.

BGS testing is difficult or even impossible when other players are doing stuff in the same system. To test properly you need small isolated systems with no player traffic or activity. The systems don't have to be small, but it makes the numbers easier to spot, and small systems are quicker for one player to push into conflict.

If you are losing a war, there must be other players fighting for the enemy. It may be the fact that the enemy faction is offering missions that more players are fighting for that side than for yours.

I'm fairly sure that assassination and pirate kill missions still work during a war or civil war. So does murder and bountyhunting, since these are all combat related.

- - - Updated - - -

Mystweaver said:
Could you link this thread please? I'm having a hard time finding it.
Click to expand...

A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
 

Macklroy

M
Thanks Lizard. I would just be happy if the playing field was level for all factions. Currently the lack of MMs available for player factions combined with the ability to stack MMs for those factions that do offer them is making it a rough go. With the 2.3 update, Frontier has stated that MM stacking will no longer be a thing (Max of 3 of like type missions) and hopefully they have squashed the issue of MM not even being offered to player factions (multiple bug reports of this same problem with many different player factions). Hopefully this will move the "MUST MAKE MONEY" crowd away from conflicts that they care nothing about other than the credits that can be made. Only time will tell. In the meantime we will have to do our best to avoid conflicts that are stacked in the opposition's favor.
 

CMDR Endincite

CMDR Endincite
Currently the lack of MMs available for player factions combined with the ability to stack MMs for those factions that do offer them is making it a rough go.
Click to expand...

To note, our observations have shown that it isn't about being a player faction or not. Certain faction gov't types - NPC or Player - put out more or less of these missions in a general sense. This can be overridden by station economy though, and we've seen military economies (most commonly surface) dump these out for a faction that gets next to none, as a rule, at other economies.

There seems no rhyme or reason behind the type filter though. E.g. types that one would think overtly militaristic are observed to be in the "low to none" category. Really, if you're fighting a war, you pay people to fight. That's not really a government-specific thing.

I strongly suspect the filter applies to entire type-categories (a type, like say democracy, has an entire category of other types that it will go into election with rather than fight) rather than type-by-type. Needs more observation.

I'll leave out the specifics so any given player or group hoping to hurt their chosen enemies can figure it out themselves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom