combat zone and war

[glojo]

More food to throw our thoughts possibly into more confusion.

It is a done deal that when we win the battle in a Conflict Zone we get told we have an increase in Minor Faction Reputation. Most of us when we get the message 'Pending War' see our influence is then frozen and does not move until results night Our faction however has seen our influence rise by 5% without any human input. This 5% gain meant precisely zilch, nada, nothing!! Yup I hear folks screaming that our influence goes up by a whopping 4% when the war is won and yet by doing precisely zilch and watching day after day, DRAW, DRAW, DRAW, DRAW etc etc No fighting, no missions and on results day I was told 'War Ended' This was a coup and if I was not doing this experiment I would have fought the war but an experiment was being carried out to see what happens when the fight is ignored and there is no through traffic. We were the challenging side in the coup so the status quo was maintained.

Now the weird issue that I was thinking about at 3am in the morning

A gain of 5% Influence during this war was is meaningless.

Go to a Low Intensity Conflict Zone, win the battle and get awarded a slight increase in Faction Reputation and that war can be won if there is no outside interference..

HOWEVER.. If we want to start a war we have to either increase or decrease our Influence to align with the prospective opposition, just like prior to this update?? So we still have influence to move our standing within the system, but in a war, in one location an increase in influence was meaningless Yup, I'm confused (Mind you no sleep in 48hrs is enough to confuse most folk)

I have NO idea how any experiment can resolve this topic?? YES, we know it is stated 'in game' that we win faction reputation when winning a battle but is it? If we accept this then is it reputation that wins wars. The easy answer is to blindly suggest the developers have wrote REPUTATION instead of INFLUENCE?? I think suggesting this without proof is not something I would want.

 

[TROG111]

In terms of war (and election)result and impact on influence, the following is what i am seeing:

- draw separates the two factions by 1% each (e.g. 2%),
- a close victory/defeat 2% (4% total),
- a victory/defeat 3% (6% total) and
- total victory/defeat 4% (8% total)

 

[Jmanis]

Why can't FDev just confirm how it works??

Because, fundamentally, it's not meant to be understood (and "played"). We (people who play the BGS) just do it anyway. It's just meant to happen and the underlying causes not inspected too closely.

 

[Dommarraa]

Because, fundamentally, it's not meant to be understood (and "played"). We (people who play the BGS) just do it anyway. It's just meant to happen and the underlying causes not inspected too closely.

Once upon a time, in the days of The Mercs, this was entirely true. However FD have caved by giving us Player Factions, Squadrons, and Sliders. We ARE now supposed to play the game, so lets play it instead of working out how to play it.

 

[TROG111]

Once upon a time, in the days of The Mercs, this was entirely true. However FD have caved by giving us Player Factions, Squadrons, and Sliders. We ARE now supposed to play the game, so lets play it instead of working out how to play it.

i totally agree, not only does FDEV want us to play now, they also want us to do the testing for them, but continue to refuse to provide any details to help us understand what should happen. They dont even bother to reply to our posts (even bug reports are 90% ignored)

 

[Jmanis]

Once upon a time, in the days of The Mercs, this was entirely true. However FD have caved by giving us Player Factions, Squadrons, and Sliders. We ARE now supposed to play the game, so lets play it instead of working out how to play it.

I disagree entirely with the above, but it's also off topic so I'll just stow it.

 

[Vurrath]

"Also I checked the journals after all this activity. There is nothing in the journals relating to CZ, side missions or war wins - FDEV if you are listening ,
why not provide this info in the journal so at least we could do a post mortum on our performance and help you bug fix this!!!!!
I suggest adding events for a) side selection; b) side missions spawn; c) side missions completion; d) war won; e) entered CZ; f) exit CZ"

*double thumbs up for this*

although i would also add a RUNNING tally of kills, so when a person's connection is interrupted, a fractional compensation can be made for their wasted time effort ;

as in ;

player ;

e) enters CZ
a) selects a side
kills...
b) side missions spawn
kills...
kills...
kills...
kills...

but then a disconnection happens.

upon re-starting the game, one STEP PROCESS, checks the journal for a incomplete ; ( 1 of two things) a FS-up transition, a f) exit-CZ,



if finding neither, then the kills tally, say for this battle (each battle would need a temporary ID or something)... 15/50
(nevermind whether that number is actual kills or not... whatever that number is on the bar - just a raw cut&paste fraction )

and it would work out as 50\15 ... 3.33333 , rounds down to... 2 digits? 1 \ 3.33





A then PARTIAL completed CZ effect, is added, instead of a complete one...

unless, 1, the CZ is still open, and another player is there (the battle temporary ID, is simply checked first)
or 2,.. there is already a compensation allocated, at a highER, completion point ;
( if one person gets disconnected, when it's 15/50 , but another when it's 45/50 ... if the 45/50 was handed in first... say the 15/50 person had some dinner, came back, and re-started AFTER the 45/50 one, immedaitely re-started )


...A then PARTIAL completed CZ effect, is added, instead of a complete one ;

so say a high CZ does... *shrug* 3 points, a medium does 2, and a low does 1.

if the player had been doing a high, it would award 3 X .33 1
if the player had been doing a med, it would award 2 X .33 .66
if the player had been doing a low, it would award 1 X .33 .33

(the same is done for the enemy, as well, but the POINT, of this compensation, is to not-let almost-wins, especially when the scores are very high V very low, if the player has done well, but gets cheated / the win 'stolen' by disconnection , go UNcompensated for)

if that would screw up whole numbers, then scale UP, highest-common-denominator,... and then round to whole numbers, not numbers-OF, decimals.



so then, say a high does... *total shrug* 30 points, a medium does 20, and a low does 10,

if the player had been doing a high, it would've awarded 30 X 3.33 9
if the player had been doing a med, it would've awarded 20 X 3.33 6
if the player had been doing a low, it would've awarded 10 X 3.33 3

easy.

---------------

example 2


same situation, but the numbers were nearer the end, say 75/100.

if the player had been doing a high, it would've awarded 30 X .75 22
if the player had been doing a med, it would've awarded 20 X .75 15
if the player had been doing a low, it would've awarded 10 X .75 7




however much, and for both sides.

it would remain in scale, but not awarding any MORE, than one would win by completing a battle. although i suppose, more than one does not get, when LOSING, a battle.
that said, it is a smaller AMOUNT, overal, from a little rounding,.. AND, you would only ever really get much, when winning by a LARGE MARGIN.

fair compensation, but ONLY, making much difference, if you deserved some.





a close call, like your side,.. 35/50... the enemy, 30/50 ... would hardly make any at all ;

50/35 = 1.43 ... 1/1.43 = .699 rounded... .70

if the player had been doing a high, it would've awarded 30 X .70 21
if the player had been doing a med, it would've awarded 20 X .70 14
if the player had been doing a low, it would've awarded 10 X .70 7

they'd get ;

50/30 = 1.67 ... 1/1.67 = .598 rounded... .60

if the player had been doing a high, it would've awarded 30 X .60 18
if the player had been doing a med, it would've awarded 20 X .60 12
if the player had been doing a low, it would've awarded 10 X .60 6


the overall (effective) difference would then be ;

inamonst a whooole battle ... players doing whole 30s, 20s... all over the place,.. dozens of them... the totals of both sides in the HUNDREDSs...

for one this y... 35/50 v 30/50 ... inamonst those hundreds... the difference between +7 & +6, or +14 & +12, or +21 & +18.

bog all, inamongst the hundreds.


whereas when it's like...

your side had allllllllmost won it... 45/50.
but your enemy only had 10/50 ....

big difference... the numbers would be more like +28 & +10 .... or +18 & +5, or something.



significantly more, for significantly more of a level of UNfair loss, from the disconnection.


-------------------

individually, these would not add much to an overall battle...

BUT... considering that sometimes multiple players get disconnections, or, players more committed to a battle than others,.. might GET, more disconnections...

what if at a particular battle, someone was disconnected... 15 times?
and another 3 people, over-TEN times?

and a few more, with less and less...


but in terms of scale?

in those above "hundreds" ?

the amount could then be significant. a difference of 75, or maybe a bit over a hundred, even.




if ppl are being disconnected a lot, and i know i do sometimes,.. then they DESERVE, something, for those near-miss 45/50s, or however much, the bars represent.



calculating the amount FOR BOTH... would remove both the oppertunity for cheating, to deliberately disconnect people, AND, it would keep ONLY the difference, ONLY the adjusted... how much MORE, than the other side... if any.

that's in proportion, AND, fair.

 

[Johnny Cyclops]

Hi Vurrath, please could you edit your lengthy post above to white font - the grey makes it illegible on a black background for this space trader's aged eyes (too many sunflares over the decades!).

 

[Alshain]

One more comment about point 3: leaving a combat zone or losing a zone would count towards the opposition. I know a few people who actually think that's the way it works. If true this would be an absolute horrible and game design (though very nice for a single player game). People in MMOs tend to play the system not the game whenever there's an advantage in sight. I guarantee that people would abuse this by just signing for the opposition and then lose. Much easier than actually winning a CZ while all they'd have to do is twiddling their thumbs! 5c nonsense from PP would be harmless compared to that...

Don't worry. It's not true.