Combat Bonds and Opposition Stations

[Chaz C]

Ok, just getting into the BGS and have looked for a definitive answer on this one but have drawn a blank.

When fighting a war and you have combat bonds but all the stations in the war system are owned by the opposition, are you actually helping the opposition when you turn in combat bonds at the station?

Also, still trying to work out how I even ended up in war - it’s a ~40k population system and I did one 5+ INF mission and after the tick my factions rep shot up over 10% (thus triggering a war with the controlling faction). Pretty sure there was no other player interaction. Another BGS bug or is the pop that low this is feasible?

The other worrying thing is that this BGS lark is all very, very addictive...

 

[Schlack]

Ok, just getting into the BGS and have looked for a definitive answer on this one but have drawn a blank.

When fighting a war and you have combat bonds but all the stations in the war system are owned by the opposition, are you actually helping the opposition when you turn in combat bonds at the station?

Also, still trying to work out how I even ended up in war - it’s a ~40k population system and I did one 5+ INF mission and after the tick my factions rep shot up over 10% (thus triggering a war with the controlling faction). Pretty sure there was no other player interaction. Another BGS bug or is the pop that low this is feasible?

The other worrying thing is that this BGS lark is all very, very addictive...

The positive effect should go to the faction you are fighting for. However given how bugged the BGS is you cant be certain, or even if you will get consistent results one day to the next.

The real problem, once they get the bugs sorted, is that your rep with the station owners goes down with every victory for their enemy. If they hold all the assets you will be hostile and unable to cash. Whether this is an intended effect to provide benefit to rulers who hold all dockable assets or thoughtless oversight is not clear, currently my money is on the latter.

 

[Dommarraa]

Does rep actually go down yet? I know the message says it does, but I never observed it actually having any effect

 

[Schlack]

Does rep actually go down yet? I know the message says it does, but I never observed it actually having any effect

that's quite possible, i haven't checked. Lets hope thats one bug they dont fix then.

 

[Chaz C]

The positive effect should go to the faction you are fighting for. However given how bugged the BGS is you cant be certain, or even if you will get consistent results one day to the next.

The real problem, once they get the bugs sorted, is that your rep with the station owners goes down with every victory for their enemy. If they hold all the assets you will be hostile and unable to cash. Whether this is an intended effect to provide benefit to rulers who hold all dockable assets or thoughtless oversight is not clear, currently my money is on the latter.

Cheers! As I say, I’m still trying to work out how I actually ended up triggering the war in the first place! Had a quick go at a low intensity CZ but the AI has obviously had a buff since I last did a CZ - it didn’t end well!

 

[Schlack]

Cheers! As I say, I’m still trying to work out how I actually ended up triggering the war in the first place! Had a quick go at a low intensity CZ but the AI has obviously had a buff since I last did a CZ - it didn’t end well!

Conflicts are triggered by equalising influence between factions. You don't have to match exactly just take actions to ensure the factions should pass each other and the conflict will "catch". Take actions to help your faction and/or actions that hurt the target faction. Missions with target factions are currently bugged. Missions that should hurt the target currently help them.

Be wary though if there are a number of factions whose influence is in close proximity. Due to the way the BGS calculates you may not always end up in conflict with the desired faction.

 

[Chaz C]

Conflicts are triggered by equalising influence between factions. You don't have to match exactly just take actions to ensure the factions should pass each other and the conflict will "catch". Take actions to help your faction and/or actions that hurt the target faction. Missions with target factions are currently bugged. Missions that should hurt the target currently help them.

Be wary though if there are a number of factions whose influence is in close proximity. Due to the way the BGS calculates you may not always end up in conflict with the desired faction.

Yeah, I understand why the war started (= INF) but I just cant understand the sudden 10%+ INF increase in my faction after one 5+ mission. The system pop is only around 50k so not sure if that’s the reason but it seemed like such a huge jump.

 

[Schlack]

Yeah, I understand why the war started (= INF) but I just cant understand the sudden 10%+ INF increase in my faction after one 5+ mission. The system pop is only around 50k so not sure if that’s the reason but it seemed like such a huge jump.

Its a lot! there's a lot of inconsistency and weird results at the moment. bugs to be squished and BGS to be balanced. Also you might not have been alone in system.

 

[Jmanis]

Does rep actually go down yet? I know the message says it does, but I never observed it actually having any effect

I look forward to them fixing that bug, and the subsequent complaints when commanders get locked out of participating in the war.

Them maybe they'll fix the hostile rep state and related mechanics finally.

 

[Dommarraa]

I look forward to them fixing that bug, and the subsequent complaints when commanders get locked out of participating in the war.

Them maybe they'll fix the hostile rep state and related mechanics finally.

Yes, its like a car crash in slow motion.

 

[Walter2]

Yes, its like a car crash in slow motion.

Very few posts have been added to the Index to the BGS since 3.3 - cumulative uninformation helps no one.

 

[Dommarraa]

Very few posts have been added to the Index to the BGS since 3.3 - cumulative uninformation helps no one.

Never heard of it, and its blocked from my PC. Not sure what the comment is implying, but I know I have reported everything to FD and the community that I know of to be working/not working

 

[Schlack]

I look forward to them fixing that bug, and the subsequent complaints when commanders get locked out of participating in the war.

Them maybe they'll fix the hostile rep state and related mechanics finally.

that may have happened with today's patch. Its either a design error to be fixed or a deliberate bonus to ruling factions holding all assets.

 

[Jmanis]

that may have happened with today's patch. Its either a design error to be fixed or a deliberate bonus to ruling factions holding all assets.

If it's the latter, it's a ludicrous design choice which should have been undone when it first got introduced three years ago.

Frankly, anyone who strongly supports a faction during a war to the point of becoming an Ally-from-neutral (which isn't too difficult a task) should likewise become Hostile to the opposed faction. Only FD are all too aware that by doing so, players would lock themselves out of participation in many wars. The mere notion of no longer being able to participate in a war "because the other side doesn't like you" is pure insanity, and there's been plenty of suggestions to resolve the issue.

- Spawn two megaships in-system, one for each side, as a location for the relevant faction to at-minimum hand in bonds
- Make bonds meaningless to the outcome of the war, and rely purely on the conflict zone resolution mechanic
- Return the ability to dock while hostile using "anonimity protocols". Currently, there is inconsistent internal logic in the game where a Hostile player already docked at station is free to use all station services, but would not be able to undertake the docking action, while a wanted player has most station services denied, but can freely dock.

The last one is the most sensical IMO... as Hostile isn't a state which can be cleared just by paying off a fine, by having access when Hostile treated the same as when Wanted, you'd still deny services like rearm/repair/refuel to enemies, but still allow the fundamental mechanic of "Winning the war" through handing in bonds to function. Honestly, it's a bit of a no-brainer.

 

[FrogsFriend]

As far as I can tell you only need to win the battles to win the war, handing in combat bonds is just an extra effect/bonus.

 

[Dommarraa]

As far as I can tell you only need to win the battles to win the war, handing in combat bonds is just an extra effect/bonus.

That will do.
You can win a battle, hand in the bonds to another of your systems in war, and win the day in Both. I have not yet tested if winning just a Spec Ops mini mission also counts as a daily win. By time I have done the Spec Ops, I cant resist wining the whole battle.

 

[Hacker#451563]

As far as I can tell you only need to win the battles to win the war, handing in combat bonds is just an extra effect/bonus.

Sorry to say my Froggy friend but the exact opposite mechanic is currently in effect.

Winning a CZ has no effect on winning a war, only handing in Combat Bonds. The good side to this is that winning a CZ has no effect on your standing with either faction.


As a side note, even if it did it wouldn't be the end of the world because as long as you take a few missions with the faction you're opposing and complete them during the week of war (for +++Rep rewards if possible) you can actually boost your rep with an opposing faction (while they gain no extra INF because that's tied to handing in Combat Bonds exclusively) while at the same time gleefully murdering their pilots en mass to win your factions war.

They say War is Hell, perhaps the BGS is Purgatory.

 

[Jmanis]

Winning a CZ has no effect on winning a war, only handing in Combat Bonds. The good side to this is that winning a CZ has no effect on your standing with either faction..

Has anyone actually *definitively* proven this yet? I've seen heaps of anecdotal information, but for every claim in one direction, I've seen an equal claim in the opposite direction, with equally "loose" information for both cases.

Generally, there's so much FUD out there it's so hard to pin anything down.

 

[Dommarraa]

Has anyone actually *definitively* proven this yet? I've seen heaps of anecdotal information, but for every claim in one direction, I've seen an equal claim in the opposite direction, with equally "loose" information for both cases.

Generally, there's so much FUD out there it's so hard to pin anything down.

It can't be proven 100% due to holes in the traffic report. Cmdrs can be invisible. I have certainty won a day with either a battle OR a bond hand in when no known other actions were performed. (a couple of times)

 

[Chaz C]

Has anyone actually *definitively* proven this yet? I've seen heaps of anecdotal information, but for every claim in one direction, I've seen an equal claim in the opposite direction, with equally "loose" information for both cases.

Generally, there's so much FUD out there it's so hard to pin anything down.

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one working the system I'm currently engaged in war in (obvs can't say that with 100% accuracy tho) and I took part in 1 CZ per day for the first 2 days, losing both battles but getting 3 combat bonds per battle, handing them in within the system. After the tick on the 2nd day the faction status said the opposition had dominated for 2 days. The next 2 days (after I did some serious engineering!) I took part again in 1 battle per day, winning both battles (go me!). The status now says my faction have dominated for 2 days. So going off that I'm pretty sure that it's the battles that determine the outcome (or at least have a major part in it), not the bonds.