CG predictions...

Ralph Vargr

Ralph Vargr
Jmanis said:
Definitely not advocating for a lack of consequence for things which should require "positive" reputation.

My issue, and why I say they have to rationalise/fix the hostile rep state is that, if you are truly an antagonist of a faction, there is no benefit to seeking open hositility with your target whatsoever; hostile rep is quite literally implemented as an "off" switch to continuing your antagonistic pursuits, under the current game design. It's the biggest steaming pile of trash ever.

Take for example, handing in bonds in a war. Doing so affects the outcome of a war. Currently, there's no implementation of auto-generating megaships when two sides enter a conflict. So if all dockable assets are owned by a faction who you are hostile to, you can no longer hand in bonds. So as an antagonist you have two choices:
  • Get hostile rep, and rely purely on clearing CZs; or
  • Don't get hostile rep, and be able to clear CZs and hand in bonds.

It's a no-brainer; you want the latter, because it's measurably more effective. This is beyond daft.

Then there's the complete absence of sense around criminal records, anonymity protocols and the "insta aggro" of hostile rep. Anonymity protocols render the pilot by-definition anonymous, so it makes absolutely no sense that a wanted pirate with level 10 notoriety can go through security undetected, but someone with hostile rep and no notoriety is instantly detected. If you have hostile rep, you should be operating under anonimity protocol rules; you can dock, but are unable to access station services, and are kill on sight if scanned.
(and let's not go near how being wanted locks you out of station services when docked, but being hostile and docked does not; further evidence about the absence of thought put into this rep state)

And then there's the infinitely worse impact of Hostile rep on Odyssey. Suddenly, all those covert activities and other antagonistic options against a faction (remembering; covert means you undertake the job undetected) are no longer an option, because for some reason despite literally crawling behind a hill, the enemy 100m away goes "oh that's a bad guy, lets kill him!" yet magically cannot do that for a wanted criminal.

It's utterly absurd. You don't get locked out of bounty hunting because you bounty hunt a lot. You don't get locked out of mining because you've mined a lot. Hell, you don't even get locked out of crime because you've committed a lot of crime. And if you help a faction a lot, you aren't locked out of helping them more. Why the heck do you get locked out from hurting a faction when you hurt it a lot. It's stupid and is years overdue to be fixed.

Right now, there are only consequences, and no benefits for picking a side, and that's rubbish.
Click to expand...
Where's that Space Loach... :)
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Final results 7:4 on bonds, 5:4 on participants

For comparison, Ackwada was 3:2 on bonds and also 5:4 on participants, so very slightly closer ... but this is still very good, and only the second directly competitive CG to finish within 2:1 ratio.

They definitely need to rethink the Tier spacing on CZs, though. Something like 3B, 10B, 30B, 100B, 300B would work a lot better for this type of CG, if they're not going to do something like Ackwada and make specific effects tied to specific Tiers.
 

maehara

maehara
Wonder how Galnet will present this one. Roll with it and tell us how the Feds got given the kicking they deserved for trying to organise a lynch mob; or once again wave the "nothing to see here / they succeeded in some small measure, we promise" wand they did with Muhdrid?

My bet's on the latter...
 

Factabulous

Factabulous
They did seem to almost ignore the Empire winning earlier on in the week - if they want to they could continue that "Despite a strong defence by Nova Imperium a crack Federal snatch squad succeeded in taking Hadrian from his flagship before they retreated to Federal space". Hopefully not.
 

Amata Lirein

Amata Lirein
Factabulous said:
So the Feds failed a CG, and lost against the Empire. it's almost as if fdev are trying to remove all the underpinnings of our predictions :)

(Though ofc this outcome was widely predicted early in the week)
Click to expand...
Lets rephrase that and accentuate the important stuff: The Empire won a combat CG by a huge margin against the Fednecks who also got denied Tier 1 in the process!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I myself feel like...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M
 
Last edited:

Factabulous

Factabulous
Ok, didn't predict that ....

1620891236508.png
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Factabulous said:
So the Feds failed a CG, and lost against the Empire. it's almost as if fdev are trying to remove all the underpinnings of our predictions :)

(Though ofc this outcome was widely predicted early in the week)
Click to expand...
Comparing with LTT 1935 (4:1 bonds 3:1 participants) a model where the CG participants (by effort more than by headcount) are roughly
- 1/3 Fed
- 1/6 Imp
- 1/4 Independent (in Fed vs Imp back the side they see as having the better story justification [1] with a range of stances on what that means)
- 1/4 Mercenary (will back whoever's winning by the time they get there, or whoever has the better reward if they're early)
does okay and doesn't seem a terrible fit for the other competitive CGs recently.

[1] Which is where the Federation's approach of "lying" does a lot better than the Empire's approach of "we don't need PR, we're self-evidently superior" 19 CGs out of 20.
 

CMDR Serra

CMDR Serra
They're reminding Alliance voters why Fat Eddie is the only sensible choice. Everyone knows Kaine is a Thargoid lover who (gasp) hates kale.

EDIT: Interesting target list...

hip 18390 - indy - kumo
celaeno - indy - Op Ida
Atlas - indy - Op Ida
Pleiades Sector HR-W d1-74 - indy - the hive
Musca Dark Region PJ-P b6-1 - Alliance - Alliance Exp Pact
Coalsack Sector VU-O b6-6 - Alliance - AEP
Coalsack Sector KN-S b4-9 - indy - the protectors
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom