That's probably because BGS discussion happens in the BGS subforum, and this thread spilled over from there due to frustration with inaction by Frontier on the known BGS bugs. I assumed that since you were posting in a BGS bug thread, you were aware of the BGS bugs we've been discussion in the sub forum for some time. If you're new to the topic, maybe don't start off with claiming that everything is fine and everybody else is wrong?
This is from 3.3.02, but the only thing fixed is that missions with negative destination effects now work, again, and CZs are generally more stable (but still don't consistently work for BGS results): https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ssues-with-the-3-3-02-BGS-(orig-AEDC-Discord) Oh, and conflicts are no longer stuck endlessly. As far as we know.
I'll never agree that something is broken if it doesn't seem broken to me, and I'm juts not seeing these problems. However I am fairly laid back about all this stuff. You have to balance that against dangerous discussion being the moan zone and full of carping about not very much at all some of it outright dishonest.
This is a silly place, its not good for bug reporting.
I'll never agree that something is broken if it doesn't seem broken to me, and I'm juts not seeing these problems. However I am fairly laid back about all this stuff. You have to balance that against dangerous discussion being the moan zone and full of carping about not very much at all some of it outright dishonest.
This is a silly place, its not good for bug reporting.
That's probably because BGS discussion happens in the BGS subforum, and this thread spilled over from there due to frustration with inaction by Frontier on the known BGS bugs. I assumed that since you were posting in a BGS bug thread, you were aware of the BGS bugs we've been discussion in the sub forum for some time. If you're new to the topic, maybe don't start off with claiming that everything is fine and everybody else is wrong?
This is from 3.3.02, but the only thing fixed is that missions with negative destination effects now work, again, and CZs are generally more stable (but still don't consistently work for BGS results): https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ssues-with-the-3-3-02-BGS-(orig-AEDC-Discord) Oh, and conflicts are no longer stuck endlessly. As far as we know.
Unless you actively try to do stuff with the BGS with the aim of promoting particular factions, most of the noticeable bugs were fixed by 3.3.02 - the exception probably being the balancing issues around the economy and security sliders which mean states are insufficiently diverse, which has impacts on both HGEs and on trade route profits.
I mean, I never saw the PS4 bug where if you had three SRVs in the same instance the game crashed ... both because I don't play on the PS4, and because I was never in a 3 SRV instance while it was an active issue anyway. But it was quite clearly broken and the fact that I never personally saw it didn't make me deny it. The vast majority of bugs reported are ones I haven't personally experienced - but they're also ones I haven't personally tried to replicate, so I don't go around saying "it works for me when I do something completely different to that" on all the bug reports.
Unless you actively try to do stuff with the BGS with the aim of promoting particular factions, most of the noticeable bugs were fixed by 3.3.02 - the exception probably being the balancing issues around the economy and security sliders which mean states are insufficiently diverse, which has impacts on both HGEs and on trade route profits.
I mean, I never saw the PS4 bug where if you had three SRVs in the same instance the game crashed ... both because I don't play on the PS4, and because I was never in a 3 SRV instance while it was an active issue anyway. But it was quite clearly broken and the fact that I never personally saw it didn't make me deny it. The vast majority of bugs reported are ones I haven't personally experienced - but they're also ones I haven't personally tried to replicate, so I don't go around saying "it works for me when I do something completely different to that" on all the bug reports.
This is the moan zone in all but name, which is constantly full of griping about nothing and some things that have obviously been made up on the spot. Its a discussion area not bug reporting so discussion will be a thing. My experience of the BGS is changed but definitely working with some minor (mostly fixed already) teething problems and constantly increasing understanding of how it now works.
I take all the griping here with a huge pinch of salt as so much of it is obviously false. Which is the only sensible approach outside the bug report forum.
This is the moan zone in all but name, which is constantly full of griping about nothing and some things that have obviously been made up on the spot. Its a discussion area not bug reporting so discussion will be a thing. My experience of the BGS is changed but definitely working with some minor (mostly fixed already) teething problems and constantly increasing understanding of how it now works.
I take all the griping here with a huge pinch of salt as so much of it is obviously false. Which is the only sensible approach outside the bug report forum.
This is indeed a discussion area, not a bug reporting area. Everyone is entitled to post their opinion so long as they're obeying forum rules while doing so.
There's always the 'ignore user' feature if you click on a forum poster's username. Otherwise, please be respectful of differing opinions.
Well, ignorant posters aside, some serious bugs remain.
Such as running missions for a faction in an election and it having a negative effect whilst doing nothing can yield a positive effect.
I hardly think that is working as intended and indeed seriously broken.
The random effects of exploration data at the moment?
After more than two months. Fixes are due or at least an admittance that these are indeed broken.
Reading random bug reports would tell me what other people are currently perceiving as problems. It wouldn't have any impact on my subjective opinion which is based on my direct BGS experience, which is mostly fine some minor teething problems which are inevitable after an upgrade and much better than it used to be.
There's no requirement for me or anyone else to be annoyed about it or claim its broken.
Well, ignorant posters aside, some serious bugs remain.
Such as running missions for a faction in an election and it having a negative effect whilst doing nothing can yield a positive effect.
I hardly think that is working as intended and indeed seriously broken.
The random effects of exploration data at the moment?
After more than two months. Fixes are due or at least an admittance that these are indeed broken.
The thing is its not totally broken, or at least has that appearance. It is navigable, but can be frustrating to do so. Its such a pity because the 3.3 revamp was pretty good. Wars and CZs finally make sense in a joined up game sense. Multiple states opens up strategic opportunity on a broader field.
Are you certain your observations are correct?
Have you replicated this with all factors controlled for? (Hint: This is actually impossible)
How do you account for other CMDRs experiencing Elections working as-expected (Support a side, get that support reflected as expected)
Have you controlled for the fact that *maybe* the mechanics around Elections have changed significantly?
This is the echo chamber I'm talking about, and Schlack alludes to this correctly. There's plenty of examples where Elections are working just fine. The last roughly-dozen elections I've actively participated in have all resolved as-expected[1], with no untoward behaviour.
Again, this feels just like the problem with Wartime Massacre missions at the moment, which if you aren't aware of the issue there:
The observation was some factions weren't generating massacre missions for opposition ships during wartime.
The *actual* bug was that the mission generation for that faction wasn't picking up the fact it was in a war, and generating None-state missions (so, massacres would only generate for pirates. This confused players when they'd go to war with a pirate faction, take one of these missions and find no mission targets, because the mission targets were pirates, not warships).
Instead, players reported that "There's no massacre missions for war targets! Increase their chance of generation!". This went on for *months* while I tried to report the actual bug... during which many tried to claim "Oh, it's just the BGS doing it's thing!".
Unfortunately, that got lost in the noise of all the incorrect bugreports leading FD to bump massacre generation chance and "guarantee some would generate". Subsequently, the *actual* bug eventually got fixed, but the preceeding fixes (which weren't actual fixes) weren't removed, so now we get massacre mission spam on the boards during war.
Thing with the Wartime Massacre Mission bug was, if a faction was affected, it was *always* affected, and if a faction wasn't affected, it was *never* affected.
My observation of 3.3 so far is it's consistently *the same* people reporting bugs, but it's not because they're the only ones looking. It's the same people who also reported their factions getting stuck in Expansion/Conflict Lock in the early days of 3.3, so there's some striking similarities to the massacre bugin that regard.
To me, this screams that it's not actually a problem with the BGS mechanics, rather a problem specifically with that faction. And that's an entirely different problem. But while everyone's running around going "The BGS is broken! The BGS is broken!" then FD will look at those mechanics, which'll probably involve testing, say, elections, on some rando faction on a test server, where they'll go "OK, well, the mission results applied correctly for the election, so eh?".
So, in my opinion the only "ignorant posters" are the one's stuck in the echo chamber refusing to hear that there's plenty of people having "status quo" interactions with the BGS. That's valuable information which'll help get the *actual* bugs resolved.
[1] I've got some running theories about the current BGS, but I'm sick of hitting the same tired old responses. I get it's frustrating, but ignoring people's opinions won't help.
It's not even "just that faction" which makes it so random. Groups working with larger factions will just see more of it. When you see 6-7 conflicts running simultaneously for a couple of weeks in a row, and each round 1-2 behave the opposite of the others, you will just see more happening at the same time.
What makes it even more random is that as far as I remember, the first tick will go right, but the 2nd will be where it goes wrong and "flips", which creates uncertainty about what to do.
We've seen another thing with exploration data, where the same amount dropped in the same system over multiple days will give different results. Is it traffic? Is it different states? Are there conditions where old faction-wide code kicks in - wrongly, in the new BGS - where a faction elsewhere in conflict now doesn't give influence for exploration data elsewhere? Is it random? Is it a new, as-of-yet unannounced or undiscovered mechanism? We don't know, because we can't tell even whether bug or intended.
This is terrible for devs trying to fix things -- bugs that happen "sometimes" are terrible to chase down. It's tough on BGS players who fall victim to it, however experienced, as it makes it unclear what to do, or you look for what you can confirm works, and change strategies. However you deal with it, though, it doesn't make the randomness a good number of BGS players are experiencing go away.
Reading random bug reports would tell me what other people are currently perceiving as problems. It wouldn't have any impact on my subjective opinion which is based on my direct BGS experience, which is mostly fine some minor teething problems which are inevitable after an upgrade and much better than it used to be.
There's no requirement for me or anyone else to be annoyed about it or claim its broken.
That'd make sense... if it were not because devs will validate many bugs and the fact that many contain proof in one way or another that their bug actually happens.
